Skip to main content

Full text of "Gruesome harvest: the costly attempt to exterminate the people of Germany"

See other formats


GRUESOME HARVEST 

The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The 
People of Germany 



By Ralph Franklin Keeling 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN ECONOMICS 

127 N. Dearborn Street 

Chicago 

1947 



Table of Contents 

DEDICATION 

PREFACE 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter I: 
WAR DEVASTATION 

Chapter II: 
EXTERMINATION BY OVERCROWDING 

Chapter III: 
PULLING DOWN THE PILLAR OF LABOR 

Chapter IV: 
THE ATTACK AGAINST GERMAN CAPITAL 

Chapter V: 
BASTARDIZING THE GERMAN RACE 

Chapter VI: 
THE PEOPLE HUNGER 

Chapter VII: 
ECONOMIC TRIBULATION 

Chapter VIII: 
TEACHING DEMOCRACY IN REVERSE 

Chapter IX: 
THE KREMLIN'S PROGRAM 

Chapter X: 
FACTS WE MUST FACE 



DEDICATION 

This book is dedicated to those people in all lands who are ruled 
primarily by reason, rather than emotion; who think consistently in 
terms of principle, rather than prejudice; who try to see events now 
the way they will be viewed a generation hence by sober historians; 
who try to identify the present distortion in public sentiment and 
understanding caused by total war and propaganda; who are willing 
to appraise the problems of peace in terms of national, rather than 
presumed personal self-interest; who do not ask others to follow rules 
and standards which they would not accept for themselves; who 
believe in equality before the law for whole peoples as for individuals; 
who recognize the injustice of condoning an act committed by one 
country while condemning the same act committed by another; who 
can see that an a priori picking of sides and choosing of favorites 
among nations without regard to their conduct is a repugnant form of 
racial or national discrimination; who strive for better human 
relations by helping overcome chauvinism, ethno-centrism, and 
persecution on any account; who respect human dignity and 
fundamental human rights; who have democratic faith in the simple 
honesty and soundness of the broad masses of people in all countries; 
who therefore believe that the people of no nation can be collectively 
condemned without condemning human nature itself; who 
sympathize with those millions of suffering, starving victims of total 
war wherever they may be; who seek the peace, prosperity, and 
happiness of all people, including those who live in our America - and 
our former enemies. 



PREFACE 

A year and a month after the Potsdam Declaration was pubUshed, 
Secretary of State Byrnes suddenly left the Paris peace conference 
and went to Stuttgart where among the German people he attempted 
to justify and defend America's policy toward the defeated Reich. 

This willingness to place a value on German public opinion marked a 
fundamental and welcome turning point in our official attitude, for 
previously we were carrying out our mission in Germany with utter 
disregard for what the Germans might think of it or us. 

The change did not arise from any newly discovered fondness for our 
defeated subjects. Mr. Byrnes had put his finger on the real reason 
when he said: "It is not in the interest of the German people or in the 
interest of world peace that Germany should become a pawn or a 
partner in a military struggle for power between East and West." 

That is precisely what had already happened. Belatedly, we had come 
to realize that while we were busily and blindly alienating the German 
people by carrying out one of the most brutal and terrifying peace 
programs ever inflicted on a defeated nation, Russia, who had been 
egging us on, was quietly preparing to come forward as their 
champion and to offer them an avenue of escape from us through the 
establishment of a unified, revived, and Communist Reich to be 
joined to the Soviet Union. This had been made clear by Molotov in 
July at Paris. 

Germany is more than a mere pawn in the struggle for power between 
world ambitious Communist Russia and the West, she is the major 
price. World Communism has long coveted Germany as the brightest 
jewel in its crown. The Kremlin knows and we know that all Europe 
would have to fall before the combined might of a union between 
Soviet Russia and a resuscitated Reich. 

Such an eventuality cannot be tolerated by Britain who, with a hostile 
Europe at her back, would find her very existence threatened. Nor 
could we countenance such a threat to England, because treatment of 
the British Isles as our first line of defense in the Atlantic is one of the 
imperatives of our present foreign policy. 

Union between Soviet Russia and a sovietized Germany would mean 
war. To prevent war, we must therefore prevent the fruition of 
Russia's design. Hence, it becomes necessary that we attract Germany 
to our side and keep her there. 



The situation demands a thorough review of our German program, 
followed by whatever changes are required to establish a decent peace 
and prevent the Germans from feeling compelled by desperation to go 
over to the Russians. 

The time has come for frank admission of past mistakes and 
courageous facing of hard facts. It is necessary for the American 
people to become thoroughly acquainted with what has been going on 
and to see to it that the proper corrective steps are taken and taken 
promptly. 

This book is offered as a contribution to that end. It sets forth in plain 
terms just what has happened in Germany, because such knowledge is 
essential both to apprehend the German point of view and to become 
acquainted with the status quo from which we must proceed with 
remedial measures. It outlines the nature of Russia 's design, together 
with a description of the mistakes we have made in falling so deeply 
into her trap. And finally it presents some suggestions for a peace 
settlement with Germany which would be at once just and permanent. 



INTRODUCTION 

At Yalta in the Crimea, Messrs. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met to 
decide the fate of Europe and in their joint statement solemnly 
declared: 

"It is not our purpose to destroy the people of Germany." 

Again at Potsdam, the representatives of the Big Three met and in 
their joint Declaration, signed by Messrs. Stalin, Truman, and Attlee, 
officially proclaimed: 

"It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German 
people." 

Despite these and other assurances, the Potsdam decisions, as we at 
first interpreted them, meant throwing the German people on their 
own, with outside assistance prohibited, after the necessary means 
for their survival had been destroyed. This could have but one result: 
to blot out Germany and the German people. 

The life of every nation is supported by three main pillars: land (all 
natural resources), labor (both brawn and brains), and capital 
(plants and equipment). Break down any one of these and the nation 
is plunged into catastrophe. 

We have been guilty of pulling down all three in Germany. 

The war started the process by destroying the flower of German 
manpower, shattering cities, factories, railroads, and impoverishing 
the soil by a flve year cessation of fertilizer production. And an 
equally oppressive war has been waged against the German people 
since their unconditional surrender. The supporting power of the 
land has been undermined by vital territorial losses followed by 
overcrowding caused by the influx of millions of Germans expelled 
into the shrunken Reich from the lost areas and from Czechoslovakia, 
and Poland. Industrial capital resources have been further 
diminished by loss of all production facilities in the territories taken 
by the conquerors and by a gigantic program of sacking politely 
known as "deindustrialization" and "reparations in kind." The 
working force had been decimated by the enslavement of millions, the 
throwing of other millions out of posts of responsibility through 
"denazification," and weakened by undernourishment which causes 
workmen to fall at their posts of duty. Even the German race itself has 
been attacked by a program of mass violation of Germany's 
unconditionally surrendered motherhood. 



In consequence, Germany lies prostrate and her people famish. After 
they began to die en masse, it was finally decided that the importation 
of some food would be necessary - unfortunately barely enough to 
keep the great masses of people in the twilight zone between life and 
death. Their agonies and despair have been perpetuated at the 
maximum of human capacity. 

The following pages portray what TIME magazine has aptly called 
"history's most terrifying peace", a peace which fully explains why 
many Germans are ready to turn to communism, or worse. For, 
strangely, our modern age which brought us the atom bomb has also 
given birth to nations which at the expense of their allies are able to 
derive profit from the production of human suffering. 



Chapter I: 
WAR DEVASTATION 

Devastation of the Reich by total warfare was alone enough to cast serious doubt on 
Germany's postwar ability to survive. 

Never before in history have the life-sustaining resources of a nation been so 
thoroughly demolished. Returning from victory in Europe, General Bradley declared, 
"I can tell you that Germany has been destroyed utterly and complete ly."[l] 

The demand for unconditional surrender had forced the desperate Germans to fight 
to the bitter end, until their cities had been pulverized into death-ridden rubble and 
their factories, railroads, canals, dams, power installations, communications, 
buildings, homes - all their exposed facilities - had been converted into heaps of 
twisted, smouldering ruins. 

Allied fervor to destroy everything German had been expressed by General 
Eisenhower with the opening of the Ruhr drive. "Our primary purpose," he declared, 
"is destruction of as many Germans as possible. I expect to destroy every German 
west of the Rhine and within that area in which we are attacking. "[2] 

Allied capacity to destroy became overwhelming after the American industrial 
colossus had been converted from peace-time to war production. American output 
soon surpassed that of all other belligerents in the war combined and became twice 
as great as the capacity of the doomed Axis. [3] 

Stunned by American power, Hermann Goring confessed to his Nuremberg prison 
guards: "The industrial genius of America is something of which no one dreamed." 

A glimpse of America's smashing force when devoted to the grim business of mass 
production of death and destruction is provided by the following description written 
by a front line war correspondent: 

"A cataclysmic blast of exploding, splintering steel rent the earth before us and it 

seemed like the world was coming to an end. 

"The Americans were blasting out a path for a forward drive. 

"Man and beast shuddered in their tracks. Whole towns were disintegrating. Life 

seemed to disappear from the scene. It was the most terrifying destructive force of 

warfare Germany has ever seen. And it was a symbol of what was to come as the 

U.S. 1st Army unloosed this shattering blow within the borders of Germany. 

"For an hour and a half more than 2,000 bombers and hundreds of guns pounded the 

German countryside, making the earth dance before this mighty man-made force. 

When the heavies and mediums were not making the earth quake for miles around, 

our massed artillery was giving them hell out there. They were firing at an average 

rate of one round every 15 seconds, blasting every conceivable obstacle in our path. 

Minefields went up as though touched off by an electric switch... 

"In the center of that frightful scene, the Germans were entrenched as a 'human 

wall.' They were dug in foxholes and inside houses of 'fortified towns.' Many died 

without knowing what had hit them. 

"Having seen brave men and wild beasts crack as thev do sometimes in the erin of a 



terrible earthquake, I could have sworn there would be no opposition when the zero 
hour came. 

"Yet, when our tanks and doughboys went over the top after the barrage, as in the 
battle of Verdun, there were Germans still alive and they fought us with 
violence. "[4] 

Great though it was, the destruction resulting from ground fighting pales in 
comparison with that caused by our gigantic air raids. The two atom bombs dropped 
on Japan may have been more dramatic, but they could hardly have been more 
destructive than the millions of phosphorous, fire, and "blockbuster" bombs dropped 
on Germany. Near the end we were using 1 1-tonners which crews said caused their 
planes to bounce up over 500 feet when the huge 25-foot missiles were released, 
sending up "a tremendous pall of black smoke and a fountain of debris" which 
"dwarfed the terrific explosions of the six-ton 'earthquake' bombs." 

During the war, more bombs by weight were dropped on Berlin alone than were 
released over the whole of England. So great was the ruin that General Eisenhower 
was constrained to say: 

"I have seen many great engineering jobs during the war - such as the clearing of 
the port of Cherbourg - but I just wouldn't know where to begin to rebuild 
Berlin." [5] 

An American writer, among the first group of correspondents allowed to spend more 
than 24 hours in the smashed metropolis, wrote: 

"The capital of the Third Reich is a heap of gaunt, burned-out, flame-seared 
buildings. It is a desert of a hundred thousand dunes made up of brick and powdered 
masonry. Over this hangs the pungent stench of death ... It is impossible to 
exaggerate in describing the destruction . . . Downtown Berlin looks like no thing 
man could have contrived. Riding down the famous Frankfurter Allee, I did not see 
a single building where you could have set up a business of even selling apples." [6] 

All German cities above 50,000 population and many smaller ones were from 50 to 
80 per cent destroyed. Dresden, as large as Pittsburgh, was wiped out and nearly all 
of its 620,000 inhabitants buried under the ruins. [7] Cologne, with a population of 
750,000, was turned into a gigantic wasteland. Hamburg, with its 1,150,000 people, 
was blasted by huge attacks, in one of which the flames rolled a mile into the sky and 
roasted alive hundreds of thousands of civilians in street temperatures of a thousand 
degrees. Frankfurt-on-Main, a city of 500,000, was reduced to a mass of rubble. All 
cities and industrial areas, such as the Ruhr and Saar regions, were laid waste. [8] 

The story of Kassel typifies the tragedy which befell the others: 

"Three hundred times the people of Kassel ran terrified to their air-raid shelters as 
giant British and American planes dropped their bombs. Nearly 10,000 were killed 
in the first terrible bombing, the night of October 22, 1943. That was largely an 
incendiary attack, which set the whole center of the city afire. Thousands were 
killed in their air-shelters bv the gas fumes from great niles of burnins coal, never 



knowing why they felt sleepy, never awakening. 

"From that night on they never knew when; they just knew they were doomed. 

Sometimes they got only a few bombs; often raiding parties which couldn't reach 

objectives farther east around Berlin picked Kassel on the way home. 

"Occasionally swarms of planes went directly overhead and nothing happened; 

other times they went overhead, and when the people of Kassel thought they were 

going on eastward, they wheeled around and came back to drop their powerful tons 

of TNT. 

"They got so they knew all the tricks, those that remained in Kassel. Steadily their 

town was beaten down upon their heads 

. . . Less than 15,000 of their 65,000 homes remained livable. They learned how to 

dig in, to escape the coal fumes, the fires. Somehow, I thought it was with just a 

touch of pride that the Burgomeister said, 'And then our latest raid, March 8 and 9, 

1945. It was by far the biggest. Perhaps a thousand big bombers, one of the biggest 

raids in all Germany; and we lost very few killed - less than 100.' 

'"And then, just before Easter, we heard the American armies were coming and 

wanted to make Kassel an open city,' said Helga Aspen, a pretty blond girl who 

stayed through it all. 'But,' she added bitterly, 'the Fuehrerhauptquartier (Himmler) 

gave orders to defend to the last man.' 

"And so Kassel, beaten by 300 air-raids, must know the crashing of American 

artillery fire. They gathered about 6,000 civilians in a deep bunker in the center of 

town and waited - as the rather inept German defense units gradually were driven 

back. 

"So, on April 4, 1945, Kassel surrendered, not more than 15,000 of its 250,000 still 

in the the city and living. Thousands lay buried under the countless tons of brick 

and mortar and twisted steel that had been dwellings and stores and factories. 

"That was a year ago and it's no exaggeration to say that they are still dazed. Only a 

few have snapped out of their stupor to become real leaders. It is not uncommon to 

see a person burst into helpless tears, if the conversation turns to recounting the war 

terror." [9] 

This wholesale destruction of the cities and production facilities of the most highly 
industrialized nation in Europe was successful from a strictly military point of view; 
however, it was also an attack against the livelihood of millions of workers, for the 
wrecking of factories and machines is also destruction of jobs, the basic means of 
life. 

Some of Germany's jobless millions have found temporary employment in clearing 
rubble and similar work. But genuine reconstruction is impossible without 
production of vast amounts of building materials and new equipment, neither of 
which can be produced in Germany today, because the necessary facilities no longer 
exist. It takes factories and machines Germany lacks to build the factories and 
machines Germany needs. 

To get the German economy off this dead center demands external assistance. And 
meanwhile the people, unable to produce the necessities of life for themselves, must 
either be allowed to die in masses or be given outside help until recovery has gone 
far enough to enable them once more to take care of themselves. 



Reference Notes: 

[1] Associated Press, New York, June 3, 1945 

[2] J. Kingsbury Smith, Paris, Feb. 24, 1945, [INS] 

[3] Cf. address by Donald M. Nelson, Chr. U.S. Production Board, Toronto, Canada. July 8, 1943; 

James D. White, Chicago Daily News [AP], May 7, 1945; and Chicago Sunday Tribune, Sept. 22, 

1946, reporting statement by Troyer S. Anderson, War Dept. Historian. 

[4] Henry T. Gorrell [UP], Chicago Daily News, Nov. 17, 1944 

[5] Associated Press, London, June 11, 1945 

[6] Eddie Gilmore [AP], Berlin, June 9, 1945 

[7] United Press, London, Feb. 14, 1945 and Associated Press, London, March 5, 1945 

[8] Associated Press, London, March 24, 1945 

[9] Jack Bell, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service, Kassel, Germany, May 15, 1946. 



Chapter II: 
EXTERMINATION BY OVERCROWDING 

Territorial Amputations 

Germany's living space, even in 1937, was small for her heavy 
population and afforded important natural resources only in the form 
of farm lands and deposits of coal and potash. Her agricultural lands 
have been overworked by intensive cultivation for 1,000 to 2,000 
years and her soil has been starved for fertilizer during and since the 
recent war. Even when plenty of fertilizer was available and her 
territory was intact, Germany was never able to produce more than 
80 per cent of the food and other farm products needed to meet her 
domestic needs. [1] 

The rest had to be imported in exchange for coal and manufactured 
exports. 

As her agricultural lands became overcrowded, Germany had 
resorted to manufacturing. By importing iron ore and exploiting her 
coal and potash resources to the utmost, she had built up the world's 
second largest steel and chemical industries which, in turn, formed 
the "workshop of Europe," raised the general European standard of 
living, and provided direct or indirect support for fully two thirds of 
her own population. 

On account of destruction by total warfare and deliberate Allied 
policy, these industrial resources are now largely wiped out. Without 
them, over half of the German workers must resort to the soil as their 
only other means of life. Under the circumstances it is extremely 
doubtful that the land, even if all held in 1937 were left intact, could 
support the huge, now jobless, industrial population on even the 
barest subsistence level. 

Without waiting to see, Germany's conquerors have ruthlessly 
stripped her of lands constituting 28 per cent of her living space, 
producing an even higher proportion of her food, and containing two 
of her three principal coal regions. To make matters still worse, they 
are expelling into the remaining Reich millions of Germans from the 
lost provinces, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere; are 
coddling a large population of "displaced persons" within stricken 
Germany; and, in the case of the Russians and French, are 
maintaining large armies of occupation which live off the land. Both 
the "displaced persons" and these occupation forces enjoy priority 
over the Germans by being able to make requisitions against them for 
whatever food and other items they need in order to live in 
comparative ease and luxury. The deplorable situation created by 
these actions can well be imagined. 



The Atlantic Charter had promised: 

"No aggrandizement." - "No territorial changes that do not accord 
with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned." - "the 
right of all peoples to choose the form of govemment under which 
they live." - "To all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their 
own borders." - "A peace . . . which will afford assurance that all men 
in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want." 

In their Yalta statement, the Big Three reaffirm their "faith in the 
principles of the Atlantic Charter" and say they uphold "the right of all 
people to choose the form of government under which they live." Yet 
in the same pronouncement they grant Russia the eastern half of 
Poland and as compensation promise the Poles "substantial 
accessions of territory" in eastern Germany - all without regard to 
"the wishes of the peoples concerned," - "freely expressed" or 
otherwise. 

Although Yalta prescribes that the exact amount of such territory 
Poland is to receive must await final adjudication at the peace 
conference, Russia at Potsdam confronted her two western allies with 
a territorial/ait accompli. She had taken a third of East Prussia as her 
own permanent acquisition and had placed her Polish puppet in 
possession of all other German territory east of the Oder and Neisse 
Rivers. Even the drastic Morgenthau Plan had called for ceding 
Poland only the part of East Prussia not taken by Russia and the 
Upper Silesian coal and industrial region. But in addition to these 
areas, Poland had now possessed herself of German Posen, nearly all 
of Pomerania and Lower Silesia, and the eastern part of Brandenburg 
- the best part of the Reich's breadbasket. In urging her two allies to 
accept these acquisitions as permanent, Russia argued that so many 
German inhabitants had fled when the Red armies invaded that to get 
the regions back into production would require their incorporation 
into the Russian and Polish economies along the lines already 
drawn. [2] 

Russia's seizure of Koenigsberg and adjacent East Prussian territory 
was accepted at Potsdam and has since gone unopposed. Renamed 
Kaliningrad, the former East Prussian capital has been developed into 
a prized warm water port for the Soviet Union, most of the German 
inhabitants have been ousted, and the whole region has been 
thoroughly Russified. [3] 

But concerning German lands held by Poland, Potsdam decides that 
"the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await 
the peace settlement"; however, it permits the territories to be held 
meanwhile "under the administration of the Polish state." Apparently 
looking upon this arrangement as tantamount to de facto recognition 



of her title to the regions, Poland has proceeded to dispossess and 
drive out the millions of German inhabitants, and to replace them 
with Poles. 

Although Moscow had led Poland to believe that she could keep the 
German provinces in question, German Communists with Soviet 
backing early in 1946 started hinting to the Germans that all or part of 
the lands might be returned and Poland herself partitioned again 
between Russia and Germany, if the Reich would accept 
communization and membership in the Soviet Union. Marshall 
Zhukov himself had made such a suggestion to German Communists 
in April and in July Molotov at Paris had lent his tacit support when, 
to the consternation of his western allies, he came out boldly for a 
territorially unified, centralized strong Reich. He specifically opposed 
any territorial amputations in the west and although silent on the 
subject, permitted the inference that some or all of the eastern 
territories might be returned. The coup came as a discomforting 
surprise especially to France and the United States, whose "tough 
peace" programs which they had assumed met with hearty Russian 
approval, called for severe amputations of the Reich. It became plain 
that Russia approved the programs only as long as her western 
friends would put them forward and thereby permanently alienate 
the German people. 

Finally realizing that we must meet the Russian bid for German 
sympathy and support, Mr. Byrnes at Stuttgart made it plain to the 
Germans that, while the United States will continue to support 
Poland's claim to some German territory, it does not necessarily 
consider the western Polish frontier to be permanently fixed at the 
Oder River. His object was clearly to place the United States in a 
position to match any offer the Russians might make to return to the 
Germans all or part of their lost eastern territory. Communist 
inspired Polish reaction to the Byrnes statement was immediate and 
bitter. The day after it was given crowds with clenched fists waving 
milled about in front of the Warsaw residence of the American 
Ambassador shouting, "Down with the defenders of Germany!" A 
spokesman of the Polish puppet government publicly warned that 
Poland "will fight" if any attempt is made to move her western 
frontier east of the Oder. A little later Stalin declared that he 
considers Poland's present frontiers permanent. With the situation 
thus stalemated awaiting the peace settlement, Poland remains in 
what may easily become permanent possession of the disputed areas. 

France, meanwhile, had waged a bitter fight to deprive Germany of 
vital western areas. Insisting that the Reich must be permanently 
weakened by economic and political dismemberment, she demanded 
that the Ruhr be detached and internationalized, that the Rhineland 



be turned into an autonomous state, and that she be allowed to annex 
the rich Saar coal and industrial regions. Placing settlement of these 
questions and her exorbitant reparation claims above all bilateral 
agreements and alliances, she attempted to force the issue by blocking 
all Allied attempts to treat Germany as an economic whole. 

Prior to the Molotov coup at Paris, France had been supported in her 
territorial claims against Germany by French Communists with 
Moscow backing. But just as she was making her strongest appeal for 
Allied approval of their severe plans for western Germany, Molotov 
suddenly abandoned her and made his unexpected bid for German 
territorial unity and support. Rejecting outright the proposed 
internationalization of the Ruhr and, by implication, French 
annexation of the Saar, he quoted from Stalin's speech of November 
2, 1942, in which he had said that it is "just as impossible to destroy 
Germany as to destroy Russia." Opposing any "alamode" plans to 
dismember or pastoralize the Reich, or to turn it into a federation or 
confederation of small states, as had been proposed, he demanded 
four-power control and administration of the Ruhr. 

Despite this stinging Russian rejection of territorial changes in 
western Germany, the United States, in exchange for a French 
promise to cease blocking treatment of Germany as an economic 
whole, promised to back French claims to the Saar which France 
thereupon began to enlarge by annexing adjoining areas. But at 
Stuttgart, Mr. Byrnes, after repeating the promise to support the 
French claim to the Saar, followed Mr. Molotov's example and 
opposed detachment of the Ruhr and Rhineland. His stand, 
supported by both Russia and Britain, will undoubtedly force 
substantial moderation in future French claims. 

Byrnes declared that apart from the Saar, and the eastern territories 
to go to Russia and to Poland as decided at the peace conference, "the 
United States will not support any encroachment on territory which is 
indisputably German or any division of Germany which is not 
genuinely desired by the people concerned. So far as the United States 
is aware the people of the Ruhr and the Rhineland desire to remain 
united with the rest of Germany. And the United States will not 
oppose their desire." 

With the exceptions noted, Mr. Byrnes, here with telling effect, 
applied to Germany the principles of the Atlantic Charter. There 
should be no exceptions. If these principles apply to the Ruhr and 
Rhineland, as they do, they apply with equal force to the Saar and to 
German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line. Such principles 
cannot be used merely as convenient trumps in the sordid game of 
power politics without convincing the world, including the Germans, 



that our stand is unprincipled, inherently contradictory, and 
prejudiced, that in consequence they are being unjustly deprived of 
territory vital to their very existence. 

The Germans have long suffered from acute overpopulation. In 
earlier years they sought relief in colonies and heavy emigration, 
which incidentally brought us the large German element in our own 
population. Later, they resorted to intensive industrialization. After 
World War I, they were stripped of their colonies, emigration was 
impeded by barriers such as immigration quotas, and their homeland 
was reduced from 208,830 to 181,699 square miles. Following World 
War II, emigration has been entirely prohibited, and all the Germans 
in Europe are being jammed into a homeland further slashed to only 
133? 000 square miles. 

Although Germany's population is half as large as our own, her 
territory in 1937 was only one sixteenth as large as ours, or about 
equal to the combined areas of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and 
Pennsylvania. Since the present losses to Poland, Russia, and France 
subtract an area as large as Pennsylvania, they mean that the 70 
million Germans are being crammed into a territory no larger than 
Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. 

Imagine trying to force half the people of the United States into these 

three states with their cities, factories, railways, and, other 

production facilities demolished! 

The resultant population compression is tremendous. Thinking 

people in France are justly worried that it will bring another violation 

of their territory impelled by millions of desperate Germans faced by 

extermination through overcrowding. 

Diplomacy which creates such powder kegs is singularly lacking in 

statesmanship and humanity. It makes sense only in terms of Soviet 

designs. 



Mass Expulsions of Outside Germans into the Shrunken Reich 

The forced exodus of Germans from the lost German territories and 
elsewhere in eastem Europe constitutes one of the blackest pages of 
history. Potsdam gives its permission by saying that the "transfer to 
Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in 
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, will have to be undertaken." 
However it adds that "any transfers that take place should be effected 
in an orderly and humane manner." 



Some 15 million people are victimized by this decree: a half million 
from Hungary, nearly three million from Czechoslovakia, and most of 
the rest from the German territories taken by Russia and Poland. 

Potsdam calls for annulment of all Nazi laws which established 
discrimination on grounds of race and declares: "No such 
discrimination, whether legal, administrative or otherwise, shall be 
tolerated." Yet these forced migrations of German populations are 
predicated squarely on rank racial discrimination. The people 
affected are mostly wives and children of simple peasants, workers, 
and artisans whose families have lived for centuries in the homes 
from which they have now been ejected, and whose only offense is 
their German blood. How "orderly and humane" their banishment 
has been is now a matter of record. 

Winston Churchill was not exaggerating when, in referring to the 
expulsions some three months after V-E Day, he informed the House 
of Commons: 

"It isn't impossible that a tragedy on a prodigious scale is imposing 
itself behind the iron curtain which presently divides Europe. "[4] 

The conservative newletter, REVIEW OF WORLD AFFAIRS, quotes as 
follows from a confidential memorandum prepared by an eminent 
European economist: 

"Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and 
children and overaged men, have been killed in eastern Germany and 
south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported 
or had to flee from their homesteads and are on the road. About 25 
per cent of these people, over 3,000,000, have perished. About 
4,000,000 men and women have been deported to eastern Europe 
and Russia as slaves. ... It seems that the elimination of the German 
population of eastern Europe - at least 15,000,000 people - was 
planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had 
said to Mikolajczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations 
at Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany: 
'Don't mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. 
You will have not trouble with them: they will cease to exist.'" [5] 

Dr. Lawrence Meyer, executive secretary of the Lutheran Church, 
Missouri Synod, after a tour of Germany stated: 

"About 16,000,000 German refugees east of the Oder are being 
deported from their homes. It has been estimated that already 
10,000,000 have been driven out. The human tragedy and suffering 
caused by this 'Volkswanderung' are unparalleled in history. Hunger, 
cold, sickness, and death is the lot of millions. An authentic eye- 
witness report of the physical wretchedness of most of the refugees is 
pictured in the following: 



"A large barge is slowly being towed across the Oder River. In it, lying 
on straw, are 300 children ranging from 2 to 14 years of age. There is 
hardly a sign of life in the whole group. Their hollow eyes, their 
swollen bellies, knees, and feet are telltale signs of starvation. These 
are merely the vanguard of hundreds of thousands - millions of 
homeless, shattered, hungry, sick, helpless, hopeless human beings 
fleeing westward - west of the Oder and Neisse Rivers. 
"A trust in God - in his goodness and mercy - these are the only hope 
of Germany today. And thank God in many there is still faith in God 
against which the gates of hell have stormed in vain during the past 
decade."[6] 

In describing the expulsions in Poland and Czechoslovakia, Russian 
officers told Chicago Daily News correspondents: 

"The Poles have cleaned out all the Germans as far west as the Oder 
River, and now all that property is for any Poles who want it. 
"The Czechs have taken care of the Germans in Sudetenland in their 
own way - and it's not pretty. They round them up, with only what 
they can carry, and start them moving." 

Upon returning to his post as professor of political science at the 
University of Michigan, after serving 14 months as director of AMG's 
regional government coordinating office. Dr. James K. Pollock, in 
August, 1946, said most of the 2-1/4 million expellees from Hungary 
and Sudetenland are old women and children. He said: 

"The Germans we are getting are mostly from the Sudetenland or 
Germans whose families had been living in Hungary for some 500 
years. They come in perfectly frightful condition. They even took the 
women's wedding rings before they left. In many cases they have no 
clothes except those they are wearing." [7] 

An officer would call at the door of the victims and order them to 
leave their home within a few hours, permitting them to take along 30 
to 100 lbs. of luggage containing nothing of value which might help 
them in making a new start elsewhere. The property forcibly left 
behind would be confiscated by the state. Any able-bodied men found 
would be hustled off to slavery. The others would then start their 
perilous hegira to overcrowded Germany wholly without protection of 
law, subjected to every conceivable abuse, including robbery, 
beatings, rape and murder. 

A dispatch in December, 1945, paints a picture of the plight of the 
exiles in the new Poland, where hundreds of thousands had been 
ousted from their homes and left to wander where they would. 
Former German cities like Breslau are described as almost 
depopulated of Germans, with Poles taking their place. The dispatch 
goes on to say: 



"Hundreds of thousands of persons in Poland are constantly on the 
move, restlessly seeking a spot where they can gruh a living out of the 
war raged land. In every rail station and junction men, women, and 
children await transport. Clusters of human beings, almost hidden 
under loads of parcels and cans and other remnants of what must 
have been their homes, wait along the roads or in blasted villages for 
any transport that will carry them somewhere else. Life with its birth 
and death continues even in these nomadic streams and everywhere 
you see womenfold tending their sick or nursing babies. "[8] 

An eye-witness report of the arrival in Berlin of a train which had left 
Poland with exacly 1,000 refugees aboard reads: 

"Nine hundred and nine men, w^omen, and children dragged 
themselves and their luggage from a Russian railway train at Leherte 
station today, after 11 days travelling in boxcars from Poland. 
"Red Army soldiers lifted 91 corpses from the train, while relatives 
shrieked and sobbed as their bodies were piled in American lend- 
lease trucks and driven off for internment in a pit near a 
concentration camp. 

The refugee train was like a macabre Noah's ark. Every car was 
jammed with Germans . . . The families carry all their earthly 
belongings in sacks, bags, and tin trunks. . . Nursing infants suffer the 
most, as their mothers are unable to feed them, and frequently go 
insane as they watch their offspring slowly die before their eyes. 
Today four screaming, violently insane mothers were bound with 
rope to prevent them from clawing other passengers. 
"'Many women try to carry off their dead babies with them,' a Russian 
railway official said. 'We search the bundles whenever we discover a 
weeping woman, to make sure she is not carrying an infant corpse 
with her.'"[9] 

New York Daily News correspondent Donald Mackenzie likewise 
reports from Berlin: 

"In the windswept courtyard of the Stettin er Bahnhof, a cohort of 
German refugees, part of 12,000,000 to 19,000,000 dispossessed in 
East Prussia and Silesia, sat in groups under a driving rain and told 
the story of their miserable pilgrimage, during which more than 25 
per cent died by the roadside and the remainder were so starved they 
scarcely had strength to walk. 

"Filthy, emaciated, and carrying their few remaining possessions 
wrapped in bits of cloth they shrank away crouching when one 
approached them in the railway terminal, expecting to be beaten or 
robbed or worse. That is what they have become accustomed to 
expect. 

"A nurse from Stettin, a young, good-looking blond, told how her 
father had been stabbed to death by Russian soldiers who, after 
raping her mother and sister, tried to break into her own room. She 
escaped and hid in a haystack with four other women for 4 days . . . 
"On the train to Berlin she was pillaged once by Russian troops and 
twice by Poles. . . Women who resisted were shot dead, she said, and 
on one occasion she saw a guard take an infant by the legs and crush 
its skull against a post because the child cried while the guard was 



raping its mother. 

"An old peasant from Silesia said . . . victims were robbed of 
everything they had, even their shoes. Infants were robbed of their 
swaddling clothes so that they froze to death. All the healthy girls and 
women, even those 65 years of age were raped in the train and then 
robbed, the peasant said."[lo] 

Precedent for these inhuman expulsions was set long before Potsdam 
in Romania where, according to a diplomatic report from Bucharest, 
520,000 Romanian citizens of German ancestry, men between the 
ages of 17 and 45 and women between 18 and 30, were rounded up 
like slaves and deported to Soviet Russia. The document said "there 
were heart-rending scenes and many preferred suicide to an 
unknown fate in Soviet Russia."[ii] 

The United States had made its own direct contribution by ousting 
more than 16,000 people of German extraction from Latin American 
countries, obtaining permission to do so by pressure of various kinds 
applied from Washington, extraditing them without trial to this 
country, holding them here in concentration camps incommunicado 
and still without trial, and finally deporting them out of this 
hemisphere where many of them have been impressed into slavery by 
England and France. [12] 

These wholesale expulsions of native populations are as 
reprehensible as anything the Nazis are accused of doing, and have 
caused deep resentment among all classes of Germans. Had America 
kept her skirts clean, and especially if she had denounced them, as 
she should have done, German respect for us would have soared. As 
matters stand, Germans blame us almost as much as the Russians and 
Poles. Our hands, too, are stained with the blood of millions of 
innocent victims of this savage, thoroughly un-American program. 

Apart from the moral aspects of the matter, the dumping of all these 
millions of expropriated, helpless, people into what remains of 
wrecked Germany piles chaos upon chaos and helps convert the 
entire German nation into one vast Belsen or Buchenwald. 



Reference Notes: 

[1] Karl Brandt, "The Rehabilitation of Germany," address Oct. 11, 1944, Chicago 

Council of Foreign Relations. 

[2] Brought out by U.S. Secretary of State Byrnes in speech at Stuttgart, Germany, 

Sept. 6, 1946. 

[3] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 14, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[4] August 16, 1945, as reported by E.R. Noderer, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] Quoted by Sen. Homer Capehart in speech before U.S. Senate, Feb. 5, 1946. 

[6] Same source as No. 5. 



[7] Statement to press conference August 22, 1946, in Washington, D.C., as reported 

by John Fisher, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[8] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Stockholm, Sweden, Dec. 13, 1945. 

[9] Henry Wales, Berlin, Nov. 18, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[10] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11554, and New York Daily News, 

October 8, 1945. 

[11] Chicago Herald American, April l, 1945, p. 16. 

[12] Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1946. 



Chapter III: 
PULLING DOWN THE PILLAR OF LABOR 

Enslavement 

Allied attacks against German manpower have proceeded along three main 
fronts: enslavement, denazification, and physical incapacitation through 
undernourishment. Our present discussion will take up the first two of these, 
with starvation postponed for special treatment. 

President Roosevelt on October 21, 1944, promised that "the German people are 
not going to be enslaved, because the United Nations do not traffic in human 
slavery." In the preceding month of Quebec, however, he had used strong 
pressure to obtain Mr. Churchill's acceptance of the Morgenthau Plan which 
called for "forced German labor outside Germany." Pravda writer Boris Izakov 
wrote that when in the following February at Yalta the proposal was advanced to 
force German workers to rebuild war-damaged areas, "President Roosevelt called 
this a healthy idea."[i] It was at this meeting that Mr. Roosevelt pressed the 
Morgenthau Plan and won Mr. Stalin's ominously ready acceptance. 

Although at Potsdam it was solemnly promised again that "It is not the intention 
of the Allies to . . . enslave the German people," thousands of Germans had 
already been marched eastward into Russia's yawning slave camps. More that a 
month earlier, on June 29, 1945, the following had been published: 

"German prisoners in Russian hands are estimated to number from four to five 
millions. When Berlin and Breslau surrendered, the long grey-green columns of 
prisoners were marched east. . . downcast and fearful. . . toward huge depots near 
Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov, and Sevastopol. All fit 
men had to march some 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went in 
handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts. . . They will be made to rebuild the 
Russian towns and \illages which they destroyed. They will not return home until 
the work is completed. "[2] 

It has long been an open secret that Russia maintains under the direction of the 
NKVD (secret police) a vast army of Russian slaves, varying in number form 10- 
20 millions, mainly recruited as "political unreliables."[3] The presence and 
importance of this huge slave force explains, among other things, the profitability 
and frequency of Soviet Russia's many "purges": they are primarily a device for 
rounding up prisoners for enslavement. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 
Soviet Union should jump at the opportunity to enslave millions of defeated 
enemy civilians and soldiers and, to avoid special criticism, induce her allies to do 
likewise. When it was learned that the Soviets were impressing German civilian 
personnel for service in factories being removed to Russia, Britain and the United 
States protested. In reply the Russians produced a proclamation signed by Gen. 
Eisenhower a year earlier requiring that German authorities must carry out any 
measures of restitution, reinstatement, restoration, reparations, reconstruction, 
relief or rehabilitation as the Allied representatives might prescribe, to 



accomplish which the Germans must "provide such transporation, plant 
equipment and materials of all kinds, labor, personnel, specialists, and other 
services for use in Germany or elsewhere as the Allied representatives may 
direct." Since the document did not require four-nation agreement, the Russians 
are permitted by it to act unilaterally. After it was produced, Britain and the 
United States had to withdraw their protests. 

A few crippled and ailing Germans who have survived the ordeal have been 
returned from the Russian slave camps to Berlin where American correspondents 
have obtained first hand accounts of what is happening. German Red Cross girls 
went at 9 a.m. on the morning of September 10, 1946, to meet a 20-car trainload 
of returning forced laborers. As the sealed cars were opened by the armed guards 
who had been riding on top, the girls were greeted with thin, scabby-faced men in 
rags begging for water or hysterically calling for help in removing the dead. A 
professional nurse told the story: 

"They had been in the train almost a week travehng about 60 miles from 
Frankfurt-on-Oder. There had been deaths from starvation, not from starv^ation 
just during the ride, but from the hardships of the trip after months of 
malnutrition in Russian labor camps. Almost all of the 800 or 900 in the train 
were sick or crippled. You might say they were all invalids. With 40 to 50 packed 
in each of those little boxcars, the sick had to sleep beside the dead on their 
homeward journey. I did not count them but I am sure we removed more than 25 
corpses. Others had to be taken to hospitals. I asked several of the men whether 
the Russian guards or doctors had done anything on the trip to care for the sick. 
They said 'No.' 

"I met only one alert, healthy man in the lot and I have seen him since. He was 
just a kid of 17. The boy told me that prisoners lea\'ing Russian camps for 
Germany are searched to prevent any from smuggling mail for their comrades. 
Therefore; when one of them has been diagnosed as a hopeless invalid, in 
anticipation of discharge he will memorize the names and addresses of relatives 
to whom he can report for his fellow prisoners. He said only prisoners in special 
favor are able to mail postcards to their nearest of kin. This kid of 17 had 
memorized 80 names and addresses in Berlin of relatives of his prison friends. 
He found the buildings at most of the addresses in rubble, with the present 
whereabouts of the former occupants unknown, but he visited all 80 addresses in 
his first six days in Berlin. "[4] 

The daily diet in Russian slave camps is soup and lectures on the glories of 
Communism and the evils of western democracy. The slightest disobedience is 
penalized by such heavy work that a third of the culprits die within three weeks 
from exhaustion. A tenth of the slaves died during the first year, according to 
those who have returned. [5] 

If prisoners released by the Russians as unfit for further forced labor happen to 
recuperate, they are re-impressed and sent back for more. [6] Moreover, able 
bodied Germans we have released who have returned to their former homes in 
the Russian zone are arrested by the Russians and sent to the Soviet Union for 
enslavement, on the pretext that they have been rendered "politically unreliable" 
through exposure to British or American influences. [7] Refusal of released 



prisoners to return to the Russian zone has created a major problem, which 
France has attempted to meet by permitting the men to remain in France as a 
special class of citizens. 

When the war ended, we enjoyed a decided advantage over the Russians in 
German esteem. Aware of the barbarities of the NKVD's treatment of slaves, 
German soldiers did their best to avoid falling into the hands of the Red armies, 
preferring instead to surrender to the British or Americans. German prisoners 
who were to be turned over to the Russians often committed suicide or tried to 
incapacitate themselves by slashing their bodies with knives, razors, or bits of 
glass. [8] Persistent reports coming from Russia, however, tell of large numbers of 
German prisoners joining the Red Army, after indoctrination in Communism, 
and justify the fear that ultimately the huge German prison army in Russia may 
be successfully converted into a potent military force which may someday be 
turned against the West. [9] 

France, according to the International Red Cross, had 680,000 former German 
soldiers slaving for her in August, 1946. 475,000 of their number had been 
captured by the United States and later turned over to the French for forced 
labor.[io] French treatment of her slave subjects is revolting to the civilized 
conscience. In an article entitled, "We Should Not Resemble Them," FIGARO 
reveals: 

"In certain camps for German prisoners of war . . . living skeletons may be seen, 
almost like those in German concentration camps, and deaths from 
undernourishment are numerous. We learn that prisoners have been savagely 
and systematically beaten and that some have been employed in removing mines 
without protection equipment so that they have been condemned to die sooner or 
later. 

"People, of course, will point to the Gestapo tortures, the gas chambers and the 
mountains of human bodies found in the internment camps in Germany. But 
these horrors should not become the theme of sports competition in which we 
endeavor to outdo the Nazis. . . We have to judge the enemy, but we have a duty 
not to resemble him."[ll] 

Gathering his facts from numerous reliable sources, Louis Clair writes in THE 
PROGRESSIVE of "the horrible conditions in the French camps of German 
POWs." He says: 

"In a camp in the Sarthe district for 20,000 prisoners, inmates receive 900 
calories a day; thus 12 die every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand are 
unable to work at all any more. Recently trains with new prisoners arrived in the 
camp: several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay 
alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came. 
"In an Orleans camp, the commander received 16 francs a day per head or 
prisoner to buy food, but he spent only nine francs, so that the prisoners were 
starving. In the Charentes district, 2,500 of the 12,000 camp inmates are sick. A 
young French soldier writes to a friend just returned from a Nazi camp: 
"'I watch those who made you suffer so much, dying of hunger, sleeping on cold 
cement floors, in no way protected from rain and wind. I see kids of 19, who beg 
me to give them certificates that they are healthy enough to join the French 



Foreign Legion. . . . 

Yes, I who hated them so much, today can only feel pity for them.' 

"A witness reports on the camp in Langres: 'I have seen them beaten with rifle 

butts and kicked with feet in the streets of the town because they broke down of 

overwork. Two or three of them die of exhaustion every week.' 

"In another camp near Langres, 700 prisoners slowly die of hunger; they have 

hardly any blankets and not enough straw to sleep on; there is a tj'phoid epidemic 

in the camp which has already spread to the neighboring village. In another camp 

prisoners receive only one meal a day but are expected to continue working. 

Elsewhere so many have died recently that the cemetery space was exhausted and 

another cemetery had to be built. 

"In a camp where prisoners work an the removal of mines, regular food supplies 

arrive only every second day so that 'prisoners make themselves a soup of grass 

and some stolen vegetables.' All prisoners of this camp have contracted 

tuberculosis. Here and elsewhere treatment differs in no respect from the Nazi SS 

brutality. Many cases have been reported where men have been so horribly 

beaten that their limbs were broken. In one camp, men were awakened during 

the night, crawled out of their barracks and then shot 'because of attempted 

escape.' 

"There are written affidavits proving that in certain camps commanding officers 

sold on the black market all the supplies that had been pro\dded by American 

Army authorities; there are other affidavits stating that prisoners were forced to 

take off their shoes and run the gauntlet. And so on, and so on . . . These are the 

facts."[i2] 

After we had delivered the first 320,000 prisoners, the French returned 2,474 of 
them to us, claiming that we had given them weaklings. Correspondents 
described them as "a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermine infested 
tatters." All were pronounced unfit for work - three-fourths of them on account of 
malnutrition - and 19 per cent had to be hospitalized. Associated Press 
photographer Henry Griffin, who had taken pictures of the corpses piled in all 
German concentration camps, including Buchenwald and Dachau, said of the 
men: "The only difference I can see between these men and those corpses is that 
here they are still breathing."[i3] 

Asked to investigate, the Red Cross reported the prisoners were receiving 
inhuman treatment. Upon our threat to stop further transfers the French 
protested that they must have more prisoners or suffer heavy financial loss. It 
then came out that the French Government was hiring the men out to French 
employers for which it collected regular union wages, an average of 150 francs per 
day per man. Out of this, the government paid each prisoner 10 francs, and stood 
their daily cost of upkeep of perhaps another 40 francs, leaving a daily net profit 
of 100 francs per slave. In the aggregate the French Government thus stood to 
make a profit of over 50 billion francs a year from its German slaves!" [14] No 
wonder it became upset when we threatened to stop handing them over. 

When we resumed deliveries, we took pains to make sure that the prisoners were 
in satisfactory physical condition. The men would be lined up and examined, 
their mouths opened and inspected, their chest thumped, their joints tried, their 
eyes, ear and teeth looked over, as if they were horses being offered for sale. GI's 



witnessing this spectacle were overheard to remark: "Gee! I hope we don't ever 
lose a war." 

In the summer of 1946 a hopeful development which may bring an end to the 
slave traffic in France put in its appearance. It began when prisoners newly 
arrived from American POW camps not only refused to work in French coal 
mines but persuaded prisoners already there to follow their example. [15] A 
month later some of the prisoners were freed and then hired to work at full union 
wages, frankly as a measure to increase output. [16] The experience proves that in 
this modern world at least men when free produce more abundantly and 
profitably than when enslaved. 

On December, 5, 1946, it was announced that the American Government had 
requested the repatriation by October 1, 1947, of the 674,000 German POW's it 
had turned over to France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxemburg. France 
had agreed to release its 620,000 of this number but gave no definite pledge of 
when they would be freed. The French Government also disclosed that the United 
States, in a Dec. 21, 1945, memorandum, expressly stipulated that the Germans 
captured by the American Army and handed over to France were chattels to be 
used indefinitely for forced labor as part of France's war reparations from 
Germany. Meanwhile reports continued to pour into the press that conditions in 
the French slave camps remained as bad or worse than before - starvation diets, 
little protection from the elements or disease, in filthy, vermin-infested quarters. 

Great Britain in August, 1946, according to the International Red Cross, had 
460,000 German prisoners slaving for her,[i7] and as in the case of France 
bringing in a handsome profit to the War Office. Upon embarking from our ports 
the prisoners were given to understand that they were being sent home; when 
they learned upon arrival in British or French ports that they were to be worked 
indefinitely as slaves, they became sullen. As one British officer said, "It takes us 
several weeks to bring them around where they will work hard. "[18] 

A British contractor employing German slaves for skilled work is reported to have 
remarked: 

"when you see how well they do things and how awful our own Ministry of Works 
- we call the Ministry the O.C, short for organized chaos - messes things up, it 
makes you wonder how we ever won the war."[l9] 

Among other projects, the prisoners were forced to build in Kensington Gardens 
a British victory celebration camp to house 24,000 empire troops who marched 
in the Empire's Victory Day parade. One foreman remarked: "I guess the Jerries 
are preparing to celebrate their own downfall. It does seem as though that is 
laying it on a bit thick."[2o] 

The British Government nets over $250,000,000 annually from its slaves. The 
Government, which frankly calls itself the "owner" of the prisoners, hires the men 



out to any employer needing men, charging the going rates of pay for such work - 
usually $15 to $20 per week. It pays the slaves from 10 cents to 20 cents a day, 
depending on the character of the work required, plus such "amenities" as slaves 
customarily received in the former days of slavery in the form of clothing, food, 
and shelter. [21] The prisoners are never paid in cash, but are given credits, either 
in the form of vouchers for camp post exchange items or credits against the time 
when they will be liberated. In March 1946, 140,000 prisoners were working on 
farms, for which the Government collected $14 a week per prisoner, 24,000 on 
housing and bomb damage clearance, 22,000 on railroads, mostly as section 
hands, the balance at odd jobs, such as digging weeds out of the Thames river or 
serving as menials for GI brides awaiting shipment to America. [22] 

According to revelations by members of the British House of Commons, about 
130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter of 1945-46 
in British camps in Belgium under conditions British officers have described as: 
"Not much better than Belsen." The prisoners lived through the winter in tents 
and slept on the bare ground under one blanket each. They say they are underfed 
and beaten and kicked by the guards. Many have no underclothes or boots. [23] 

In the summer of 1946 an increasing number of prisoners were escaping from 
British slave camps with British civilian aid. Accounts of the chases by military 
police are reminiscent of pre-Civil War pursuits of fleeing negro fugitives. [24] By 
mid-September public indignation had risen to such a pitch that the British War 
Office announced that plans were under way to release 15,000 slaves per month, 
with preference given those displaying "genuine democratic" convictions. Army 
officers and important Nazis would not be repatriated under the plan. However, 
promises were made to improve conditions in the camps. [25] 

The official International Red Cross report in August 1946 showed that our own 
government, through its military branch in the German zone, was exacting forced 
labor from 284,000 captives, 140,000 of them in the occupation zone, 100,000 
in France, 30,000 in Italy, and 14,000 in Belgium. [26] 

Slave holdings of other countries, as reported by the Red Cross, were: Yugoslavia 
80,000; Belgium 48,000; Czechoslovakia 45,000; Luxemburg 4,000; Holland 
i,300.[27] 

Keeping these millions of Germans away from their families is a direct attack 
against the German home and family, and in this respect serves only 
Communism. Still the tie that binds the men to their loved ones has remained 
strong. A dispatch from Geneva tells a touching story. 

"Hundreds of tons of parcels shipped by German war prisoners in United States 
camps to relatives in the Reich \ia the International Red Cross during the last 
three years are congesting warehouses here. The Geneva organization is unable to 
forward them because no central Red Cross is permitted in Germany. Other 
hundreds of tons are being held in New York pending a solution. 
'"The contents of the packages tell a pitiful story,' said Col. T. F. Wessels, provost 



marshal! at U.S. army headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany. They contain chiefly 
wooden toys laboriously made by hand by the prisoners to send to their children, 
and even hand made shoes for their wives and mothers. Many German captives 
refrained from smoking and sent their cigarette allowances and candy. Many sent 
books about American life. "[28] 

An attempt is made by British officials to justify the enslavement on the grounds 
that the men are prisoners of war, and that as such they can be forced to work 
under the Geneva Convention rules. It is said that the war is not yet legally ended, 
that the prisoners are still soldiers of the German Government, and that when 
they return to Germany it will be the responsibility of the German Government to 
give them their pay accumulated as soldiers and prisoners. This argument rests 
on the assumption that there is a German government. But they also argue that 
repatriation of the prisoners cannot take place, as called for by the Geneva 
Convention as soon as hostilities are over, because there has been no armistice or 
peace treaty signed with Germany, and that none can be signed at present, 
because there is no German Government. 

By similar double-talk they justify feeding the prisoners rations well below army 
standards on the pretext that the Geneva Convention which requires standard 
army rations has expired with World War II; yet, when press representatives ask 
to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse, with the excuse that the 
Geneva Convention bars such visits to prisoner-of-war camps. [29] 

The International Red Cross, the highest authority on the subject, roundly 
condemns the slave system. As related from Geneva: 

"The United States, Britain, and France, nearly a year after peace, are violating 
International Red Cross agreements they solemnly signed in 1929. 
"Investigation at Geneva headquarters today disclosed that the transfer of 
German war prisoners captured by the American army to French and British 
authorities for forced labor is nowhere permitted in the statutes of the 
International Red Cross, which is the highest authority on the subject in the 
world. 

"Although thousands of the former German soldiers are being used in the 
hazardous work of clearing mine fields, sweeping sea mines, destroying surplus 
ammunition and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly 
forbids employing prisoners 'in any dangerous labor or in the transport of any 
material used in warfare.' 

"Russia refused to attend the 1929 conference of the International Red Cross and 
Japan never ratified that convention, so neither Moscow nor Tokyo was bound by 
the provisions regulating war prisoners. 

'"The American delivery of German prisoners to the French and British for forced 
labor already is being cited by the Russians as justification for them to retain 
German army captives for as long as they are able to work,' an International Red 
Cross official admitted. 'The bartering of captured enemy soldiers by the victors 
throws the world back to the dark ages - when feudal barons raided adjoining 
duchies to replenish their human live stock."'[30] 

A Red Cross observer condemns the enslavement in these words: 



"It is an iniquitous system and an e\dl precedent because it is wide open for 
abuses with difficulty in establishing responsibility. German soldiers were not 
common law convicts - they were drafted to fight in a national army on patriotic 
grounds and could not refuse military service any more than the Americans 
could. It is manifestly unjust to buy and sell them for political reasons as the 
African Negroes were a century ago."[3l] 

It must be emphasized, moreover, that many of the slaves were never German 
soldiers. Many were civilian Germans held in America during the war, including 
seamen picked up before we entered the war, former legal residents of the United 
States, and persons brought here by force from Latin America for having pro- 
German sentiments. Even anti-Nazi Germans who have voluntarily returned to 
Germany from America to help the military government rebuild the destroyed 
countries and to help families and friends in dire need have been nabbed for 
enslavement.[32] 

In sharp contrast with our treatment of German war prisoners was German 
treatment of American war prisoners. Allan Wood, war front correspondent of 
the London Express, in summarizing German treatment of their prisoners said: 

"The most amazing thing about the atrocities in this war is that there have been 
so few of them. I have come up against few instances where the Germans have 
not treated prisoners according to the rules, and respected the Red Cross. "[33] 

Lieutenant Newton L. Marguiles, Assistant Judge Advocate of Jefferson Barracks, 
said in St. Louis, Mo., April 27, 1945: 

"The Germans even in their greatest moments of despair obeyed the Convention 
in most respects. True it is that there were front line atrocities - passions run high 
up there - but they were incidents, not practices; and maladministration of their 
American prison camps was very uncommon. "[34] 

Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, on Jan. 5, 1945, wrote to the National 
Commander of the American Legion: 

"Our treatment of them" (prisoners of war) "is governed by the Geneva 
convention which, among other provisions, requires them to be furnished rations 
equal in quality and quantity to those of American troops at base camps in this 
country. This is done as a matter of treaty obligation and our soldiers in German 
hands receive generally reciprocal treatment. "[35] 

The American Red Cross in 1945 reported officially that "99 per cent of the 
American prisoners of war in Germany have survived and are on their way 
home." 

German treatment of Russian war prisoners was on a par with Russian treatment 
of German war prisoners. Since Russia had not signed the Geneva Convention, 
neither it nor Germany was bound by its provisions. And it must be remembered 
that the atrocities in German concentration camps did not involve war prisoners. 



but people supposed to be German, people who now proudly admit, those who 
have survived, that they were members of the German underground, saboteurs, 
doing their best to obstruct and defeat the German war effort. The treatment they 
received, while deplorable and inhuman in the extreme, is on a par with Russian 
treatment of her political prisoners. If one is to be condemned, so must the other, 
if there is to be justice. Otherwise, we are guilty of rank discrimination, 
condemning a crime committed by one, condoning or overlooking it when 
committed by another. If we really fought this war to stop such things, the war 
will not be over until the inmates of the Russian slave camps are also liberated. If 
we fought a half trillion dollar war to free those in German camps only, but not to 
free those in Russian camps, an explanation is due. 

In any case, we must ask ourselves what we would do if we should go to war with, 
let us say, Russia, and were beset from within by an "underground" movement of 
sabotaging Communist fifth-columnists. 

An attempt has been made to justify enslavement of the common man of 
Germany on the ground that the Nazi government exacted forced labor from 
foreign workers. It is true that the Reich had millions of imported workers, but it 
is also true that, except for special cases such as war prisoners coming under the 
Geneva Convention, they were for the most part paid and fed well. 

Dr. James K. Pollock, for 14 months with AMG [American Military Government], 
said of Germany's "forced laborers": "I think some of the persons found 
themselves better off than at any time in their lives before."[36] A mass of 
evidence proves that this is true and that Allied war propaganda to the contrary 
was greatly exaggerated. Besides, there can be no justification for punishing the 
average citizen of any country for the sins of its political leaders. 

In July, 1946, Max H. Forester, chief of AM G's coal and mining division when 
asked, "What did the Germans do to get efficient production for forced labor that 
we are not able to do with Germans working the mines?" replied: "They fed their 
help and fed them well. "[37] 

The American Federation of Labor in the summer of 1946 came out strongly 
against the slave system as a fundamental threat to free labor all over the world. 
Calling attention to tariff laws which specifically forbid the importation from 
foreign countries of goods produced wholly or in part by convict, forced, 
indentured, or any other form of involuntary labor,[38] AF of L spokesman 
Herbert Thatcher warned in a radio address that the slave labor system may 
grind down trade and production to a level that can lead to another war. 
Conditions of slave labor in Britain, France, and Russia, he said, "menace world 
peace and they destroy world trade." - "Therefore, the American Federation of 
Labor," he concluded, "calls upon the United States government to propose to the 
United Nations that all member nations renounce the use of forced labor and 
agree to bar the products of forced labor from world trade."[39] 



Upon his return from the Nuernberg trial Justice Jackson, who had served as U. 
S. chief prosecutor, reported to President Truman that German industrialists and 
financiers could be tried "on such specific charges as the use of slave labor." He 
went on to say: 

"We negotiated and concluded an agreement with the four dominant powers of 
the earth which for the first time made exphcit and unambiguous what was 
theretofore, as the tribunal has declared, implicit in international law, namely, 
that ... to enslave or deport ci\dlian populations is an international crime and 
that for the commission of such crimes indi\dduals are responsible. "[40] 

Willis Smith of Raleigh, N. C, President of the American Bar Association, in 
defending the Nuernberg convictions said: 

"The time has come when men who order criminal things to be done should 
themselves be declared criminals. Since when are murder and deportations and 
slave labor not crimes?"[4l] 



Denazification 

Germany under Hitler was ruled by the single National Socialist German Workers 
party, with all other parties outlawed. The system in this respect was similar to 
that of the Communists of Russia who since the 1917 coup d'etat have enforced a 
one party system upon the Russian people and treated all dissident political 
opinions as treason. 

Rejecting parliamentarism, the Nazis followed what they called the leadership 
principle. The chief leader or "Fuehrer" exercised supreme authority; under him 
descending layers of subordinate leaders spread out fan-wise through all 
branches of society to bring the entire German nation under centralized party 
control. 

After it took over, leaders in all walks of life found it necessary or expedient to 
join the party or one or more of its affiliated organizations. Among its 7,500,000 
members were nearly all government workers, professional men, scientists, 
technicians, professors, teachers, writers, and businessmen inducted as "fuhrers" 
of business and compelled under heavy penalties, such as confiscation of 
property, to conform to party policies and mandates. White collar workers, 
craftsmen, and technicians had to fall in line to be eligible for promotion. 
Membership expanded rapidly during the war and the period of high tension 
immediately preceding. Party and nation became so closely identified that to join 
was to display patriotism; to refuse, to invite penalization for disloyalty. In short, 
almost everybody in Germany with brains, skills, and managerial ability belonged 
to the Nazi party, or one of its affiliated organizations and obeyed its orders. 

By placing sole blame for the war on Germany and therefore the Nazi party, by 
declaring the war to be one of aggression, and by outlawing aggression as a crime 



against humanity, Germany's conquerors have condemned the Nazi party, its 
affiliates, and its millions of members as criminal. The punishment meted out at 
Potsdam, if carried out to the letter, would mean the virtual liquidation of 
Germany's middle and upper classes. 

The blanket incrimination rests upon an infirm base, as revealed in the Potsdam 
denazification decrees. In one breath they order that all "discrimination on 
grounds of . . . political opinion shall be abolished"; yet in the next breath they 
permanently dissolve the Nazi party and its affiliated organizations and 
institutions, ban propagation of Nazi political opinion, without identifying it in 
particular, and call for severe punishment of all Nazis simply for being Nazis. 

Potsdam commands that "Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high 
officials of Nazi organizations and institutions . . . shall be arrested and interned" 
and that all lesser Nazis "shall be removed from public and semi-public office and 
former positions of responsibility in private undertakings." 

In attempting to carry out these unusual edicts, which were looked upon as a 
purge order "to throw the rascals out," the American military government issued 
"Law Number Eight" to denazify business and various mandatory removal edicts, 
the exact provisions of which were military secrets, to purge government of all 
Nazis. Approximately 3,000,000 German men were affected in our zone out of a 
total population of 16,682,000. Our occupation authorities jailed 75,000 and 
earmarked another 80,000 unreturned war prisoners for internment for being 
important Nazis; ousted more than 100,000 from public office; and denuded 
business of managerial and technical talent by firing and demoting hundreds of 
thousands of others. [42] 

In other words, we set out to ruin the lives and reputations of three million men 
in our zone alone because, as they see it, they made a "political mistake." In 
consequence, the Germans are afraid to identify themselves with any political 
party or to express any political views, for fear of being punished later on, just as 
the Nazis are being punished now. 

Most important of all, the zone and its people have been denied the economic 
benefits which would accrue if these men were permitted to do the work which 
they alone by talent, training, and experience are capable of performing. Putting 
the zone's most productive men in pick and shovel gangs and filling their places 
with incapables has been one of the chief contributing causes to the zone's 
economic paralysis. 

Our occupation authorities have been confronted with two opposing mandates 
which often set them to working at cross purposes. They were ordered at 
Potsdam to secure enough production to supply the needs of the occupation 
forces and the "displaced persons," with enough left over "to enable the German 
people to subsist without external assistance." In the attempt to carry out this 
mandate some of our zonal authorities, for example, might be out scouring the 



zone with scanty success for trained personnel to run the undermanned railway 
system. But at the same time, some of our other authorities, attempting to 
enforce the denazification decrees, would be out ahead of the others nabbing and 
jailing trainmen and locomotive engineers, because they had been Nazis. 

Administration of the denazification decrees proved to be a task of forbidding 
magnitude. The limited AMG personnel found it impossible to get the three 
million Nazis properly registered, their questionnaires filled out and tabulated, 
and proper files set up. Nor could individual trials and hearings for so many be 
properly conducted, especially when each error added to the rising tide of 
German indignation. 

Fearing organized resistance, we carried out in Gestapo fashion one of the 
greatest mass raids in history. Striking at daybreak without warning, our troops 
halted every vehicle in our zone, checked the papers of civilians and soldiers, and 
swept through every German house from cellar to attic. Although the German 
populace had supposedly been under the influence and domination of criminals 
and criminal organizations for a dozen years, according to the men in charge "the 
search showed less crime than perhaps would be uncovered in a similar action 
over a comparable area in the United States."[43] 

A few months of experience proved to us that in the denazification program we 
had taken hold of a very hot iron, impossible to hold, yet difficult to drop. We 
therefore tossed it to the Germans for them to handle. 

The law turning the job of denazification in our zone over to the Germans was 
largely formulated by one Heinrich Schmitt, a corpulent Communist Quisling 
serving under AMG as Bavarian Denazification Minister. The execution of the law 
was also partly placed in his hands. [44] This sort of thing is a logical outgrowth of 
the program which automatically places political responsibility on former 
political neutrals or active anti-Nazis, including Communists, who, with 
Communist Russia signing the Potsdam Declaration, must be accepted as 
"democratic." 

The law is designed to permit some Nazis, otherwise condemned, to prove their 
innocence or pay the penalties and be restored to citizenship. It sets up five 
catgories of war criminals and potentially dangerous persons, namely: 

1) Major offenders, 2) offenders broadly described as Nazi activists, militarists, 
and profiteers, 3) lesser offenders, 4) followers, constituting the broad 
membership of the party and affiliates, and 5) persons exonerated after a tribunal 
finds them innocent. 

Penalties for those in the first category range from death or life imprisonment to 
imprisonment for five or more years with or without hard labor. Those in the 
second category maybe imprisoned for a period up to ten years. Those in lower 
categories are subject to a variety of "sanctions," including loss of citizenship and 



the right to vote, debarment from public office, loss of personal rights such as the 
privilege to own an automobile, demotion in position with heavy cut in 
compensation, discharge from position, confiscation of property, and 
employment only at ordinary labor. [45] 

To make matters easier, we granted an amnesty to all Nazis in our zone under 27 
years of age who had no special charges against them. The action readmitted to 
citizenship about a million men who, as General Clay put it, had become Nazis 
before they were old enough to know what they were doing. He failed to explain 
why the same consideration might not apply to most of the older men as well. At 
any rate, the action was accompanied by a statement to the effect that it was the 
desire of the military govemment "to offer encourgement to the youth of 
Germany to understand and develop a democratic way of life."[46] 

Unfortunately, most of those pardoned under the blanket order were in France, 
Britain, Belgium, Holland, Russia or elsewhere for indefinite terms performing 
forced labor in the manner of convicts. 

Within a few months left wing critics again began to complain that the elaborate 
German court system which had been set up to adjudicate the million remaining 
cases was far too lenient, that it was permitting Hitler's Hordes to creep back. In 
November 1946, Lt. Gen. Lucius D. Clay expressed concern over the leniency 
being shown Nazis in German courts. Setting a 60 day deadline before which the 
Germans must prove they had developed "the will to do this job which is not 
present today," he warned that the military government was ready to take back 
the job of denazification unless the German courts tightened up. The day before 
the following Christmas, Gen. McNarney proclaimed a general amnesty for 
approximately 800,000 "little Nazis" in the U.S. zone. Included were minor Nazis 
whose incomes during the calendar years 1943 and 1945 were less than 3,000 
marks and whose taxable property in 1945 did not exceed 20,000 marks. 

Nevertheless, in the autumn of 1946 the Allied Control Council's Coordinating 
Committee passed general denazification laws for the whole of Germany 
patterned after the American zonal law, with enforcement, however, left entirely 
to each zonal authority. [47] This loophole permits the other occupation 
governments to continue to denazify as they see fit, which thus far has been with 
greater reasonableness and leniency than have been exercised in the American 
zone where enforcement, in other words, has been far more rigid and drastic than 
elsewhere. At Stuttgart Mr. Byrnes was able to boast that denazification in the 
American zone had been completed. 

Less than four weeks later, the Nuernberg tribunal handed down its momentous 
decision. Out of 22 arch-Nazis the Allied court, which certainly cannot be accused 
of judicial neutrality or leniency, and which tried the cases on four all-embracing 
counts, gave the death penalty to only 12, life imprisonment to three, prison 
terms ranging from 10 to 20 years to four, and acquitted three. If three of the very 
highest Nazis were free of all guilt, and four others were only partly guilty, the 



broad party membership could not be seriously guilty at all. This means that the 
denazification decrees which condemn all Nazis without trial are thoroughly 
unjust. The Nuernberg proceedings themselves have been roundly condemned 
for violating basic principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, particularly for 
condemning on the basis of ex-post facto law, for placing partisan judges on the 
bench, and for excluding evidence that would reflect on the victorious powers. 
But the verdict handed down at Potsdam was still worse, for there a blanket 
verdict of guilty was pronounced, without even a pretense of trial, evidence, or 
testimony. Under the present denazification laws, all Nazis are still guilty, unless 
they can prove themselves innocent in the face of procedure which permits 
violation of the accepted rules of evidence. [48] 

The Nuernberg tribunal also tried various Nazi organizations to determine 
whether or not they and their members were criminal. The SS, Gestapo, SD - elite 
guard, secret police, and security police - and the higher brackets of the Nazi 
leadership corps were adjudged criminal organizations. This means that for 
acquittal, some 400,000 members must prove they were forced to join or knew 
nothing of the criminality. Punishment ranges to the death penalty. On the other 
hand, the SA - original storm troopers - was dismissed as not linked with 
conspiracy to wage aggressive war, and the General Staff, High Command, and 
Brown Shirts were found not guilty. Certainly, then, the broad masses of the 
German people could not be guilty, and should not be punished. 

The denazification program in general and the Nuernberg trial in particular 
violates our traditional ideas of justice; on the contrary, they embody the Nazi 
and Communist concept of jurisprudence - the liquidation of ideological 
opponents. As Barron's weekly says: 

". . . the punishment is being meted out one-sidedly to the vanquished. After all, 
except that they did not commit the same spectacular atrocities on the spot, the 
Russians did just about the same things in Poland that the Nazis did. Thus a 
combination of excusably fanatic Nazi-haters and purposeful fellow-travelers has 
provided a Roman holiday by exploiting our legitimate desire for a new 
international law. 
"In the eyes of the world we have adopted the Communist view of justice. "[49] 

Even worse, we have permitted Communists, whose worst doctrines and those of 
the Nazis are identical, to continue to preach and agitate and even to work their 
way into key positions in our military govemment. When we first arrived the 
Germans were strongly anti-Communist; they have since started fleeing our zone 
and entering the Russian where they are welcomed into the Communist party and 
even into the Red Army, in whose ranks they may someday be able to get their 
revenge against us. 

Denazification in the Russian zone has been far more enlightened and less 
economically disruptive. The strong men of the Kremlin could hardly take 
seriously the condemnation of all Nazis as criminals when they know full well 
that their own party, which rules Russia much as the Nazi party ruled Germany 



and which demands the same bhnd obedience of its members, is guilty of every 
act for which we so strongly condemn the Nazis: wars of aggression against 
peaceful neighbors, wars of nerves, confiscation of property of whole classes 
without compensation to the owners, violation of treaties and agreements, 
hostility toward religion, concentration camp atrocities, slave labor, looting and 
abusing conquered countries, the use of fifth columns and Quislings, one-party 
rule by terror with the aid of civilian informers and a brutal secret police system, 
stifling of human rights and individual liberties of all kinds, and even the aim to 
conquer the world. 

The Russians know this and so do the Germans. When we condone the one and 
condemn the other we become ridiculous in the eyes of both. 

The attitude of the Kremlin toward denazification was expressed years ago and 
probably has not changed since. Russia in partnership with Hitler had just 
attacked, defeated, and partitioned Poland and Hitler had proposed that since the 
issue which had started the war had been settled, all the belligerents should stop 
fighting and call a general disarmament conference. Britain and France had 
declined with the terse remark that they would fight on for the "extermination of 
Hitlerism." The Kremlin scoffed. Its reaction, which is probably still its inner 
conviction, was reported by the Associated Press from highly censored Moscow 
(Oct 9, 1939), as follows: 

"Soviet Russia threw her weight behind Adolph Hitler's peace gestures today in 
an editorial in the government newspaper Izvestia, accusing Great Britain and 
France of 'returning to the middle ages' for waging war to 'exterminate Hitlerism.' 
"Izvestia asserted British-French arguments that the war must be prolonged to 
crush Hitlerism 'makes us return to the gloomy middle ages when devastating 
religious wars were carried on to exterminate heretics and people of different 
religions.' The paper asserted: 

'"It is impossible to exterminate any idea or any opinion by fire and sword. 
'"One may respect or hate Hitlerism or any other system of political opinion. That 
is a matter of taste. But to begin a war for the 'extermination of Hitlerism' means 
to admit to criminal silliness in policy.'" 

Potsdam's decrees calling for the "extermination of Hitlerism" have been highly 
useful to the Kremlin, however, for they have provided a basis for the liquidation 
of the German "bourgeoisie" and therefore set the stage for ultimate 
communization. The necessary expropriation of property has been accomplished 
through confiscation of the holdings of Nazis, absentee fugitives, "war profiteers," 
and other classes of synthetic criminals. But once a nominal Nazi in the Russian 
zone has been dispossessed he is offered a chance to redeem himself. He is given 
his job back if he works satisfactorily for six months with clean-up crews. 
Denazification is thus linked to "Aufbau" or reconstruction. [50] Minor offenders 
have been tried in German courts and penitent Nazis are invited to join the 
Communist party. [51] According to Reuters, German military officers have been 
taken into the Red army by invitation. When the officers cross the zonal frontiers 
they are nominally "arrested," placed in quarantine camps, and invited to enlist. 



Upon acceptance, they are given preferential treatment. In other words, the 
union of the Red and Nazi armies has begun. [52] 

In her zone, Russia is taking full advantage of the many points of similarity 
between her own system and that of the Nazis under Hitler. Some Germans are 
remarking that "Communism is nothing but National Socialism under a different 
name."[53] While we continue to pound away at the evils of Nazism, which we 
apparently consider as something unique, Russia, which our army men have been 
ordered not to criticize, matches up these evils to those of her own system and 
thereby facilitates the desired transformation from the one to the other. 

By eliminating the "bourgeoisie" in our zone we have played into the Kremlin's 
hands, for the action has removed the principle barrier to the establishment of 
the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and ultimate absorption of the zone into the 
Soviet Union - the Kremlin's own United Nations. Our entire denazification 
procedure has been highly satisfactory to Moscow, for the greater the chaos, 
despair, and disgust we create, and the greater the resentment of the German 
people becomes, the stronger becomes the grip of Communism, and the closer we 
come to losing everything for which we fought the war. 



Reference Notes: 

[I] Associated Press, Moscow, March 31, 1945. 

[2] Quoted in Congressional Record, March 29, 1946, p. 2864. 

[3] Cf. David Dalhn, The Real Soviet Russia (Yale University Press, 1944), Chapter XI, "Forced 

Labor." 

[4] Hal Foust, Berlin, Sept. 17, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug. 11, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[6] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug. 19, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 5, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[8] Associated Press, Stockholm, Nov. 30, 1945. 

[9] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 15, 1946. 

[10] John Thompson, Geneva, Switzerland, Aug. 24, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[II] The Progressive, Jan. 14, 1946, p. 4. 

[12] Louis Clair, The Progressive, Jan. 14, 1946. 

[13] Congressional Record, Dec. 11, 1945, p. A-5816. 

[14] Henry Wales, Paris, March 12, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[15] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Lille, France, July 6, 1946. 

[16] John Thompson, Geneva, Aug. 18, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[17] John Thompson, Geneva, Aug. 24, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[18] Arthur Veysey, London, May 28, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[19] Arthur Veysey, London, May 8, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[20] Same as No. 19. 

[21] Same as No. 18. 

[22] Ward Walker, London, March 7, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[23] Chicago Tribune Press Service, London, May 19, 1946. 

[24] Chicago Tribune Press Service, London, Aug. 27, 1946, and The Chicago Sun, Aug. 27, 1946 

(London AP dispatch). [25] John Wilhelm, London, Sept. 12, 1946, The Chicago Sun, London 

Bureau. 

[26] Same as No. 10. 

[27] Same as No. 10. 



[28] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, Switzerland, May 30, 1946. 

[29] Same as No. 18. 

[30] Henr>' Wales, Geneva. Switzerland, April 13, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[31] Same as No. 30. 

[32] Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1946. 

[33] Cf. The Progressive, Feb. 4, 1945, p. 1. 

[34] Vital Speeches, May 15, 1946. p. 480. 

[35] National Legionaire, Feb. 1945. 

[36] James M. Haswell, Washington, Aug. 27, 1946, Chicago Daily News, Washington Bureau. 

[37] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 23, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[38] Cf. Charles Manley, Washington, D.C., Aug. 18, 1946, Chicago Daily Tribune of same date. 

[39] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Washington, Aug. 24, 1946. 

[40] Associated Press, Washington, D.C., Oct. 15, 1946. 

[41] The Chicago Sun, Oct. 11, 1946, p. 3. 

[42] Lt. Gen. Lucius Clay, as reported by Hal Foust, Berlin, April 24, 1946, and Chicago Tribune 

Press Service. [43] Associated Press, Frankfurt on the Main, July 23, 1945. 

[44] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Feb. 7, 1946, and April 9, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign 

Service. 

[45] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, March 5, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[46] The Chicago Sun, Stuttgart, Germany, July 2, 1946 (United Press). 

[47] Associated Press, Berlin, Oct. 14, 1946. 

[48] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Berlin, Oct. 24, 1946. 

[49] Barron's, Oct. 7, 1946. 

[50] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Mar. 27, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[51] Associated Press, Berlin, Jan. 30, 1946. 

[52] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 5, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[53] Edd Johnson, Berlin, Mar. 29, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 



Chapter IV: 
THE ATTACK AGAINST THE GERMAN CAPITAL 

Looting 

The sacking of Germany after her unconditional surrender will go down in 
history as one of the most monstrous acts of modern times. Its excess beggars 
description and its magnitude defies condemnation. 

Allied armies that swept into Germany came with blood in their eyes and the 
conviction born of propaganda that the Germans had lost caste as members of 
the human race, were unworthy of protection afforded by human law and 
civilized institutions such as property rights and security of person. It was not 
thought of as looting, but simply as helping one's self to property the Germans 
had forfeited by being German. 

Russian soldiers were particularly ravenous, their appetites for loot being 
restrained only by the limitation placed on their own rights to hold property. 
Things the individual Russian soldier could keep, such as wrist watches, they 
snatched on sight, even from the arms of Yankees. 

The serious looting by the Russians was conducted officially, systematically and 
thoroughly. Every house and apartment was entered, searched, and stripped of 
everything at once valuable and movable -jewelry, silverware, works of art, 
clothing, household appliances, money. Stores, shops, warehouses were 
ransacked. Farms were denuded of farm animals, machinery, seed reserves, 
fodder, wine and food stocks. Telephones were removed from residences, 
telephone and telegraph lines and equipment were dismantled. Automobiles, 
motor trucks, even fire engines, were seized. Everything not nailed down was 
hauled away.[l] For the German standard of living must be lowered to the average 
of Europe. 

The Russian armies of occupation, kept equal in size to the combined occupation 
forces of the western powers, live off the land, paying for requisitions by paper 
occupation marks. Exorbitant occupation costs afford the Kremlin an effective 
device for milking the territory. Charges in the Soviet zone of Austria are several 
times greater, relatively, than those the Germans imposed on France, Belgium, 
Holland, Greece, and elsewhere.[2] This, despite Austria's promised "liberated" 
status. 

All of the Allies have issued huge amounts of military currency which the 
Germans are forced to accept in "payment." It is conservatively estimated that 
altogether they have pumped into the country between 15 billion and 20 billion 
occupation marks as against a normal currency circulation of between 7 and 9 
billion. [3] This means that the four powers have obtained between 2 and 4 billion 
dollars worth of German property for the mere cost of printing money issued in 
payment. 



Just as there was a preponderance of American forces in the armies that struck 
against the west and south of Germany, so in these sectors was the 
preponderance of the looting American. Chicago Daily News foreign 
correspondent William H. Stoneman, stationed with the U.S. 3rd Army, wrote in 
May, 1945, when Germany was surrendering: 

"I have been impressed by the careless manner in which the booty has been 
handled and the way in which great stocks of foodstuffs have been left to the 
reckless inroads of looters. "[4] 

A few days later he cabled: 

"Millions of dollars worth of rare things varying from intricate Zeiss lenses to 

butter and cheese and costly automobiles are being destroyed because the Army 

has not organized a system for the recovery of valuable enemy material. 

"Frontline troops are rough and ready about enemy property. They naturally take 

what they find if it looks interesting, and, because they are in the front lines, 

nobody says anything. 

"There are no M.P.s in the front lines. 

"But what front-line troops take is nothing compared to the damage caused by 

wanton vandalism of some of the following troops. 

"They seem to ruin everything, including the simplest personal belongings of the 

people in whose houses they are billeted. 

"Today, we have had two more examples of this business, which would bring 

tears to the eyes of anybody who has appreciation of material values. 

"First I found two boxcars loaded with magnificent Zeiss rangefinders for ack-ack 

guns, thousands of rare lenses, worth at rough estimate, perhaps $1,000,000. 

"Most of the things we saw there - many of them scattered about the tracks - were 

priceless, and thousands of dollars worth of stuff had been scattered as G.I.s 

combed boxcars for binoculars and other items which appeared easy to sell. 

Anybody with any knowledge of precision instruments would have cried his eyes 

out to see instruments worth $500 to $1,000 scattered around like so much junk. 

"Later I visited a warehouse which had been loaded with textiles and it was like a 

pigsty. 

"There still were thousands of yards of printed cotton goods and artificial woolen 

goods Ij^ing around, but much more bad been looted by somebody or other. "[5] 

In one case looting resulted in arrests and trials. A WAC Captain and a Colonel 
were arrested in America and tried in Frankfurt, Germany, for taking $1,500,000 
worth of jewels, mostly of the House of Hesse, from a castle owned by Princess 
Margaret of Hesse, granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Defense attorneys at the 
trials made clear the extent of looting which had been done and the philosophy 
behind it. An on the scene account reads as follows: 

"The princess scored hea\dly against the defense contention that the owners of 
the jewels were just a bunch of Nazis whose loss was a misfortune of war which 
should not be singled out for prosecution from among hundreds of thousands of 
thefts from Germans by the American army personnel. "[6] (emphasis added) 

It is, indeed, unlikely that the case would have gone to trial had the owners lacked 
such imposing connections. It is well known that we took from German museums 
some 200 art masterpieces with the intention of keeping them. Public opinion 



was so outraged that President Truman found it expedient to promise their 
return; yet no one was prosecuted or even arrested. 

American Provost Marshall Lt. Col. Gerald F. Beane, whose duty it is to deal with 
crimes committed by our soldiers, in an official report released in Berlin late in 
1945 on the nature and extent of criminality in our army of occupation stated that 
larceny and robbery are the crimes most frequently committed by our soldiers. A 
leading daily comments: 

"As to the crimes against property, the explanation is fairly obvious. No effective 
steps were taken to discourage looting by the invading armies during the war. 
Officers and men alike committed this crime and for much the most part went 
unpunished. It was tolerated under some such euphemism as souvenir collecting. 
The habit of stealing, once formed, is difficult to break. The fault, of course, lies 
with the high command which permitted the abuse. Col. Beane's pronouncement 
suggests that the army is tardily seeking to correct its error."[7] 

Most of this type of looting died out during the first year of occupation; after that 
the methods became more subtle and indirect. Late in July, 1946, GI's were called 
to task for "sleeper purchases" of German properties which could be bought at 
the time for almost nothing, but which may some day have great value.[8] Full 
advantage has been taken of the currency chaos. In September, 1946, military 
authorities, to kill American profiteering in the black markets and illegal 
acquisition of foreign exchange, issued a new scrip currency, to replace all 
"foreign and allied military currencies in financial transactions throughout 
United States army installations. "[9] And if official Russian accusations can be 
given credence, American officials have stolen equipment from plants in our zone 
earmarked for shipment to Russia on reparations account and sold it to foreign 
countries for their personal profit. [10] 

However, the type of looting just discussed, although it has run in value into 
hundreds of millions of dollars and robbed the German people of comforts and 
necessities they have sorely needed during the dreadful days through which they 
are having to pass, is but petty larceny as compared to the gigantic program of 
industrial sacking authorized at Potsdam. 



Economic Cannibalism 

Potsdam decrees that future German production shall be so limited by the Allied 
Control Council that the average German standard of living will not exceed the 
average of the standards of living of other European countries, exclusive of 
Britain and Russia, and that "productive capacity not needed for permitted 
production" shall be taken by the conquerors as plunder or destroyed. The 
prostrated German economy must be drawn and quartered and its flesh fed to 
other economies, a project which has aptly been called "economic cannibalism." 



Potsdam piously recites, as a mere observation, not a mandate, that the program 
"should leave enough resources to enable the German people to subsist without 
external assistance." At the same time it admits that remaining resources are 
disastrously inadequate, for it says that the war and defeat "have destroyed 
German economy and made chaos and suffering inevitable." Still, it proceeds to 
lay down a reparations program to destroy or remove a large part of the scanty 
remaining production facilities. 

After much wrangling and horse trading, the Control Council in March, 1946, 
reached its decisions fixing the future levels of production both for Germany as a 
whole and for individual industries in accordance with Potsdam's stipulations. As 
a top limit, but by no means a guaranteed minimum, Germany's output under 
these orders may reach by 1949, but not surpass, the level to which it plunged at 
the bottom of the great depression of 1932, just before the Nazis were voted into 
power, when a third of the German workers were unemployed. . 

In carrying out the Potsdam mandate calling for the "elimination or control of all 
German industry that could be used for military production" and emphasis on 
"the development of agriculture and peaceful domestic industries," many 
ordinarily peaceful industries are entirely prohibited. These include shipbuilding, 
manufacture and operation of airplanes, ball and taper roller bearings, nearly all 
types of heavy machine tools, heavy materials, aluminum, magnesium, beryllium, 
vanadium, radioactive materials, hydrogen peroxide, and synthetic oil, gasoline 
and ammonia. 

Exports and imports are rigidly controlled and drastically restricted. Payments 
for necessary imports are given first call on proceeds from exports. Imports are 
confined mostly to a small amount of food and nitrates for fertilizer; exports are 
limited largely to coal, potash, and lumber. Foreign trade in the ordinary sense 
has been impossible, however, and will remain so, as long as the mark is given no 
value in terms of other currencies. 

Future production of a large number of domestic industries is drastically 
restricted. Electrical engineering is cut in half; mechanical engineering by two- 
thirds. Synthetic textiles are sharply curtailed. Over-all chemical production is 
reduced to 45 per cent of the old level. Steel production may not surpass 
5,800,000 ingot tons a year, against the former 54,000,000 ton capacity.[ii] 
Britain had argued that such a level would turn the Reich into an economic desert 
and had fought for a 7,500,000 ton level. Since Russia had held out for a much 
lower figure, however, the 5,800,000 ton ceiling was reached as a compromise. 

All during the negotiations Russia had fought for extremely low production 
ceilings. She had even asked for a sharp reduction in permitted food imports, to 
reduce the volume of necessary exports, and thus to free more industrial booty in 
which she was to share. When a little later shipment of reparations to her from 
the western zones was halted, she suddenly reversed her stand, however, and 
asked for higher ceilings. Molotov specifically demanded higher coal production 



and said, "The Reich must be permitted more steel, greater industry and foreign 
trade." 

Mr. Byrnes at Stuttgart stubbornly defended the agreed production ceilings and 
insisted the program would permit some betterment in the German standard of 
living if the German people would work and save hard enough. 

Apart from generating bitter despair through closing the door to any hope of 
achieving prosperity, the ceilings have had little practical significance, because 
actual German output has remained far below the permitted levels. Our military 
authorities have asserted that it will require years for German recovery to reach 
the ceilings which have been set. The current effect of the program has been 
largely confined to repression of power to produce thorough destruction and 
removal of productive capacity and other measures, such as the banning of 
scientific research. 

German science, upon which German industry depended heavily, has been dealt 
a lethal blow, partly by direct prohibitions and partly by the operations of the 
denazification decrees which automatically ended the careers of the great 
majority of German scientists, at least within the Reich. Potsdam has ordered 
control of "all German public or private scientific bodies, research and 
experimental institutions, laboratories, etc., connected with economic activities." 
In harmony with this decree, German science has been suppressed by orders 
from the Control Council. 

Research (in Germany) by scientists who had been Nazis or had contributed to 
the development of German weapons, secret or otherwise, has been banned. 
Others, and they are very few, are forbidden to probe into a long list of specific, 
comprehensive subjects, lo general categories of chemicals, and anything of 
military value or nature. Pure or theoretical science - explorations into the basic 
laws of nature and the like - may be conducted by the few eligibles, but only 
under military government surveillance. 

In other words, German science has been destroyed, and with it German ability to 
compete commercially with the war victors. 

German scientists, as a matter of fact, have become a highly esteemed form of 
war plunder. Russia, the first to recognize their value, was unable to hide her 
anxiety and frantic efforts to grab as many as she could. Britain, France, and the 
United States were not slow in following her example, entering the competition 
with marked success. We even managed to kidnap a large number from the 
western Russian zone when we retired to let the Russians take over. At first our 
interest was confined to experts who had been working on war developments, 
especially atomic fission and secret weapons. Others in our zone, including 
numbers who had fled before the Red armies, were held in jail. We changed this 
wasteful policy, however, after Dr. Roger Adams, head of the chemistry 
department of the University of Illinois and scientific adviser to the deputy 



governor of AMG, declared it unwise to confine ourselves only to war industry 
scientists, since many of those languishing in prison would prove equally valuable 
to us for other purposes if we chose to use them. In consequence we have now at 
our disposal hundreds of ex-German scientists who no doubt constitute one of 
our most profitable acquisitions taken from the fallen Reich. Perhaps they should 
be counted as reparation. 

In addition we have sent into Germany teams of experts to scour the country and 
search out all German patents, designs, and secret processes, privately owned, or 
otherwise. According to Assistant Secretary of State Willliam L. Clayton, in 
testimony before a U.S. Senate committee in June 1945: 

"We intend to secure the full disclosure of an existing German technology and 
invention for the benefit of the United Nations. . . This Government and other 
governments with which Germany has been at war have reduced to their control 
inventions and designs both patented and unpatented which were owned and 
controlled by German nationals at the time of the outbreak of war ... It is 
probable that no steps will be taken by either the legislative or executive branch 
of this government which would have the effect of returning such rights to the 
former German owners." 

Mr. Morgenthau called for the industrial sacking of Germany by proposing that, 
instead of repeating the mistake made after the last war by demanding 
"reparations in the form of future payments and deliveries, " requiring 
production and sale of exports, this time 

"reparations shall be effected by the transfer of existing resources and territories, 
e.g. ... by transfer of German territory and German private rights in industrial 
property situated in such territory to invaded countries. . .; by the removal and 
distribution among devastated countries of industrial plants and equipment . . .; 
by forced German labor outside Germany; and by confiscation of all German 
assets of any character whatsoever outside of Germany." (emphasis added) 

These proposals to trample on the sanctity of private German property could 
hardly fail to meet with wholehearted approval in the Politburo. In effecting the 
program no pretense is made that the owners of confiscated private property will 
be compensated now or later by either the Allies or the German government, for 
the latter, if it is ever established, will no doubt be so weak that such 
compensation would be beyond its financial capacity. 

Yet the Hague convention in Article 46 in the section dealing with "Military 
Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State" says: "Private property cannot 
be confiscated. " Article 53 underscores the point by saying that any private 
property taken during an occupation "must be restored and compensation fixed 
when peace is made." 

In view of the present deadly, worldwide assault against the institution of private 
property, those who pretend to be its defenders should insist upon adherence to 
these provisions of international law. Flagrant Big Four violations not only create 



the injustices the laws were established to prevent but incriminate the victors of 
World War II for the very actions for which they so strongly and justly 
condemned Hitler. One can readily understand why Socialistic Soviet Russia 
would violate private property rights in occupied countries, but the same cannot 
be said of the United States. 

Russia at Yalta took the lead in demanding that German reparations be set at 20 
billion dollars, half of which was to go to herself. President Roosevelt, engrossed 
as he was in his "great design," gambling that Russian suspicions of the western 
capitalistic powers could be allayed by giving Stalin everything he wanted, and 
more, agreed to support the demand. Prime Minister Churchill, however, pointed 
out the obvious fact that if Germany was to be so weakened by de- 
industrialization that she could not pay reparations from current production and 
if reparation was to be limited to plant and equipment discarded by de- 
industrialization, there could be no justification for Russia's position. The de- 
industrialization program would automatically limit the amount of reparation to 
the amount to plant and equipment not ruined by war, less whatever amount 
would be left to the Germans. For the sake of harmony, however, the 20 billion 
dollar figure was accepted "as a basis for discussion." 

At Potsdam Russia was apportioned the lion's share of the reparation. She was to 
receive all from her own zone, plus 25 per cent from the other zones. Of the latter, 
two-fifths was to go to Russia outright and three-fifths was to be given to her "in 
exchange for an equivalent value of food, coal, potash, zinc, timber, day products, 
petroleum products, and such other commodities as maybe agreed upon," 
presumably to be taken from her zone. President Truman said of the 
arrangement: "It is a means of maintaining a balanced economy in Germany and 
providing the usual exchange of goods between the eastern part and the western." 
In other words, one section of German economy must give up to Russia 15 per 
cent of the flesh to be stripped from its bones in order to receive sustenance from 
another section - a most remarkable form of economic cannibalism. 

The value of Germany's bombed and battered plant and equipment remaining at 
the end of the war has been officially estimated at between 5 and 10 billion 
dollars, of which 45 per cent was located in the Russian zone where Russia was 
given a free hand. Under the "level of industry plan" 40 per cent of this was to be 
available for removal as reparation or destroyed. Total reparation, therefore, 
could not be more than 2 to 4 billions, and if Russia were to adhere to the general 
plan in her zone her total share from all Germany could not exceed 2.4 billion 
dollars. 

At first Russia went along amicably with the program and, according to some 
reports, apparently took far less than the 40 per cent allowable from her own 
zone. In March, 1946, the head of the local Thuringian government told 
correspondents permitted to visit there on a conducted tour that Russia has 
dismantled less than 100 out of Thuringia's 5,200 industries. [12] A later report 
had it that out of 6,272 industries in the province only 310 had been dismantled. 



of which 80 had been able to get under way again. Neither gave the relative size 
of the establishments seized. If the plants taken were of average size, they 
constituted only 2 to 5 per cent of the total. Early in the summer of 1946 the 
United States estimated that actual removals from the Russian zone amounted to 
between 500 and 750 million dollars, exclusive of war booty, restitution for 
destroyed or stolen Russian goods, or occupation costs. [13] This was still less 
than the allowance. Considering how thoroughly she stripped such regions as 
Manchuria and northern Iran before evacuating her troops, her early restraint in 
her German zone, if true, would suggest an ulterior motive. 

What this motive might be is indicated by the fact, also according to reports, that 
over 90 per cent of the plants in her zone were in operation, with from 80 to 100 
per cent of their output going to Russia as occupation costs or reparation. For 
example, at one plant with an output of 20 million razors, the German market 
was to receive 3 million; the rest was to go to the Soviet Union. Persistent rumors, 
moreover, told of large German munitions plants operating day and night in the 
zone producing munitions and implements of war for the Soviet Union. 

Meanwhile reparations shipments from the western zones had gotten under way 
in April. The first shipment was six shiploads carrying the physical assets of the 
Deschimag shipyard, Germany's largest, valued at $4,800,000. Soon to follow 
were 20 carloads of machinery and tools valued at $5,000,000, representing half 
of the assets of the country's largest ball bearing plant. Other early shipments 
included the Gendorf unit of the Anorgana Chemical works, valued at 
$10,000,000 and the vast Daimler-Benz underground aircraft engine plant near 
Oberingheim. 

By May, according to Reparations Commissioner Edwin W. Pauley, the U.S. zone 
had earmarked 144 plants for removal to Russia, of which 35 or 40 were actually 
shipped, before we suddenly halted further shipments on the ground that we 
must do so to protect the economic interests of our zone until interzonal 
economic unity had been achieved, in harmony with Potsdam. Shortly before 
this, however, the western powers had failed to get the Russians to agree on how 
much inspection a four power commission would be allowed to do in all four 
zones, including the Russian. The idea has originated in the Paris conference of 
Foreign Ministers to allay interzonal suspicions and to give each occupying power 
a clearcut picture of disarmament in other zones. Britain has hinted that she 
wanted to check rumors that munitions were being turned out in the Russian 
zone; Russia had retorted with the direct accusation that Britain had not 
disbanded large units of the captured German army and wanted to investigate. 

Whatever the reasons, we stopped further shipments of reparations from our 
zone. And then the storm broke loose. 

Russia apparently reversed her whole attitude toward Germany. In June at Paris 
Molotov declared it ridiculous to try to destroy Germany, called for a strong, 
centralized and economically balanced Reich with the Ruhr and Saar attached. 



specifically asked for higher steel and coal production levels than those Russia 
had previously agreed upon, saying, "The Reich must be permitted more steel, 
greater industry and foreign trade," and added, "The Soviet Government insists 
that reparations from Germany to the amount often billion dollars be exacted 
without fail." His object was clear: Russia now wanted a Germany able and 
required to pay large reparations so heavy that socialization would become 
mandatory, with "Anschluss" with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to 
follow. 

Meanwhile, Russia was stripping her zone to the bone, implying that it was 
necessary to do so to guarantee a continued flow of reparations to the Soviet 
Union. Many of Germany's greatest producers of civilian goods were dismantled 
and shipped eastward. Among them were the two largest shoe factories (Lingel 
and Tack); the largest sugar refineries in the great beet-sugar region; the largest 
grain processing mills in Europe, at Barby near Magdeburg; the great Bemberg 
Silk Mills, famous before the war for their hosiery and lingerie, and the Zeiss 
Optical Works at Jena. All secondary rail lines were torn up and all electric 
locomotives removed from the zone. 

But many of the confiscated plants were left in Germany where they could be 
operated by Germans for Russia's benefit. She installed Russian or Communist 
foremen and placed Russians or Communists on the Boards of Directors. In this 
fashion she acquired complete ownership and control of 200 of Germany's key 
industries comprising the zone's real economic wealth and employing 1,300,000 
workers - a third of the zone's working population. Examples of the industries 
seized are all of the I.G. Farben Industrie plants in Saxony, including the famous 
Leuna chemical factories at Merseburg, Bitterfeld, and Wollin; the Reich's only 
important copper works, the Mansfield Co., in Saxony; the machine works of 
Krupp Gruson at Magdeburg; the Brabag Brown Coal and Gasoline Co., near 
Gera in Thuringia; the Polysius machine works at Dessau; and many of the most 
important iron ore plants, machine tool factories, coal mine companies, potash 
mines, and electrical plants. 

America, which from the beginning had been the most zealous in carrying out de- 
industrialization in its own zone, made no protest to Russia until it was learned 
that two establishments owned by American concerns, the United Shoe 
Machinery Co. and the Corn Products Refining Co., had been among those seized. 
We then offered the suggestion that Allied owned property should be exempted 
from seizure and added the pious thought that plants producing civilian goods 
should be kept in Germany. Our note went unanswered. It is known, however, 
that Russia has invented numerous excuses to give her seizures apparent legality, 
among them being the contention that plants with international backing are 
abandoned property and that the owners, most of whom have fled or been 
liquidated, were war profiteers. 

Since Britain had come forward with a scheme to nationalize the Ruhr and other 
industries in her zone, potentially worth billions of dollars, in a manner that 



would place title to much of it in her own hands as "custodian" without one cent 
of compensation to the former owners, she had lost all moral ground on which to 
base a protest against the Russian action. Nor could the French object, in view of 
their avaricious, vengeful treatment of their own zone, where looting has been 
just as thorough as in the Russian, but far less intelligent; where, for example, 
they demand most of the crops to be harvested and at the same time requisition 
draft animals in July just when most needed to help gather the harvest. 

Although America went about the business of dismantling and dynamiting 
German plants with more fervor than was at first exhibited in any other zone, our 
motive was quite different from the motives of our allies. Russia is anxious to get 
as much loot as possible from Germany and yet to make it produce abundantly 
for Russia to help make her new five year plan successful, and ultimately to 
absorb the Reich into the Soviet Union. France is ravenous for loot, has been 
anxious to destroy Germany forever and to annex as much of her territory as 
possible. Britain has found uses for large amounts of German booty, wants to get 
rid of Germany as a trade competitor, while retaining her as a market for British 
goods. The United States has no use for German plant and equipment as booty, 
and has often said so. We consider our own abundant production equipment 
superior. Apart from one or two special cases, our primary interest in German 
assets has been in those located outside Germany, to eliminate German 
competition in world trade. We are willing to permit the German people to 
subsist on their own little plot of land, if they can, but we are determined that 
they never again shall engage in foreign commerce on an important scale. In 
partnership with Britain we have carried out a systematic campaign to root out all 
German contacts and assets located abroad and have put our own traders in their 
place. 

Known as the "replacement program," the campaign is closely related to the 
"safehaven" program which calls for the forcible elimination of all accumulations 
of German capital abroad. 

The following extracts from testimony by assistant Secretary of State William L. 
Clayton before the "Kilgore Committee" of the U.S. Senate, June 25, 1945, tell the 
story: 

"LATIN AMERICA" 

"The government soon determined that German enterprises could not be 

permitted to sur\dve ... in this hemisphere. The replacement program was 

accordingly evolved as a means of bringing about the elimination of German 

enterprises and of German interests. 

"The businesses of any persons who were acting against the political and 

economic independence or security of the American republics 'shall be the object 

of forced transfer or total liquidation."' German economic and political 

penetration in this hemisphere has, for the most part, been dealt a blow from 

which it will probably not recover ..." 

"THE SAFEHAVEN PROGRAM" 

"The replacement and safehaven programs are both based upon the common 



knowledge that totalitarin Germany was able to marshall the ostensible private 
interests of German nationals abroad for the purpose of waging economic war." - 
"The safehaven program concerns itself with denying to Germany" among other 
things "the German capital investments already located abroad when the war 
began." - "The financial and corporate interests of German nationals located 
outside of Germany have either been seized or will be subject to seizure." (Mr. 
Clayton also advocated that Germans with brains and skills, including citizens of 
Latin American countries of German extraction who had publicly expressed any 
sympathy for the German cause, should be extradited and sent to Germany.) 

Accordingly, we have confiscated nearly a billion dollars of property in this 
country believed by our Justice Department to be owned by Germans, although 
held in the name of citizens of neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland. 
Attorney General Clark says the Justice Department contends these holdings now 
belong to the United States Government. 

The external operation of the program has been illustrated by our forcing 
Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and other countries to hand over their German 
owned assets. Sweden, for example, held German wealth valued at 104 million 
dollars. At the same time we held 200 million dollars of Swedish assets which we 
had "blocked," that is, cut off from Swedish control during the war. We used 
these blocked funds as a club to compel Sweden to turn the assets over to us. 
After long negotiations, she finally did deliver 77 million dollars worth of the 
German resources and we in turn unblocked the 200 million dollars in Swedish 
funds in America. After obtaining the funds we confiscated them and divided the 
loot with Britain and France. 

We were able to obtain half of the 200 to 250 million dollars worth of German 
assets held in Switzerland and pried loose over 100 million dollars worth of 
German assets from Spain. We have used and are using every weapon and 
pressure at our command to root out and confiscate German assets all over the 
world, and in the process, as Mr. Clayton testified, have dealt a death blow to 
German foreign trade. 

That we officially recognize that the program will also destroy Germany and 
exterminate the German people was made perfectly clear by Mr. Clayton in his 
testimony before the Kilgore Committee. Dr. Schimmel, chief investigator, had 
inquired of the Under-Secretary of State if it were not true that the Germans had 
made their successful penetration of South American trade for the purpose of 
acquiring superior information facilities. Mr. Clayton replied: 

"With the Germans it was not a matter of information, it was largely a matter of 
necessity. I mean they had to have foreign trade, they had to export in order to 
live. The country has, as you know, very little natural resources. The only natural 
resources of any consequence that they have are coal and potash, and they had to 
export manufactured goods in order to acquire the raw materials that they 
needed in their economic life, in their industry, and foreign trade was an 
absolute necessity for the Germans, "(emphasis added) 



Taking their foreign trade away from them, and making it impossible for them to 
export manufactured goods, the program advocated by Mr. Clayton and 
embodied in the Potsdam agreements, was tantamount, therefore, to 
pronouncing the death sentence on the German people. 



Reference Notes: 

[i] Henry Wales, Berlin, April 8, 1947, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[2] Lee Hills, Vienna, Austria, July 20, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[3] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. Cf. also Edd Johnson, Berlin, 

April 29, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[4] William H. Stoneman, with U.S. 3rd Army, May 4, 1945, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[5] William H. Stoneman, with U.S. 3rd Army, May 8, 1945, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[6] Hal Foust, Frankfurt, Germany, Aug. 26, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Chicago Sunday Tribune, Nov. 18, 1945, p. 22. 

[8] Associated Press, New York, July 24, 1946, Chicago Daily News. 

[9] United Press, Berlin, Sept. 25, 1946. 

[10] United Press, Moscow, Aug. 2, 1946, Chicago Daily News. 

[11] Allen Haden, Washington, Nov. 14, 1944, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[12] Edd Johnson, Berlin, Mar. 28, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[13] James P. Warburg, The Chicago Sun, Aug. 5, 1946, p. 10. 



Chapter V: 
BASTARDIZING THE GERMAN RACE 

Not only have the conquerors set out to destroy Germany economically by pulling 
down the three pillars of production but they have launched an assault against 
the German race itself by an attack against its mothers. From the record it 
appears that the men who met at Yalta deliberately formulated a diabolical 
program of racial bastardization which they considered an appropriate response 
to the claim of racial superiority. 

A Russian General told General Ira Eaker, Commander of the Mediterannean air 
forces: "We've decided just to kill all the German men, take 17,000,000 German 
women and that will solve it." Something on this order was obviously the intent. 
The millions of German men of marriageable age not killed or disabled in war 
were marched off into slavery where they could not protect their wives, 
sweethearts, daughters and sisters. And then the attack began. 

From the east came the Bolshevized Mongolian and Slavic hordes, repeatedly 
raping every captured woman and girl, contaminating them with venereal 
diseases and impregnating them with a future race of Russo-German bastards. In 
the west the British used colonial troops, the French Sengalese and Moroccans, 
the Americans an excessively high percentage of negroes. Our own method was 
not so direct as the Russian: instead of using physical force, we compelled the 
German women to yield their virtue in order to live - to get food to eat, beds to 
sleep in, soap to bathe with, roofs to shelter them. 

Senator Eastland of Mississippi, after a European tour of observation, told his 
colleagues in the U.S. Senate early in December, 1945: "The virtue of womanhood 
and the value of human life are civilized man's most sacred possessions, yet they 
are the very cheapest thing in Russian-occupied Germany today." 

He had learned first-hand of such incidents as the following, told by a priest in a 
letter smuggled out of Breslau, Germany, September 3, 1945: 

"In unending succession were girls, women and nuns \iolated. . . Not merely in 
secret, in hidden corners, but in the sight of everj^body, even in churches, in the 
streets and in public places were nuns, women and even eight-year-old girls 
attacked again and again. Mothers were violated before the eyes of their children; 
girls in the presence of their brothers; nuns, in the sight of pupils, were outraged 
again and again to their very death and even as corpses." [1] 

Meanwhile newspaper headlines assured us that "Ivan and Joe Are Brothers 
Under the Skin." 

Prime Minister Churchill had told the Germans in January, 1945, just before they 
surrendered unconditionally: 



"We Allies are no monsters. This, at least, I can say on behalf of the United 
Nations. . . Peace, though based on unconditional surrender, will bring to 
Germany and Japan immense and immediate alleviation of suffering and 
agony."[2] 

When our Russian Allies "liberated" Danzig they promptly liberated all the 
women of their virtue and chastity - by raping all - from small girls to ladies as 
much as 83 years of age. A 50-year-old teacher says that her niece, 15, was 
violated seven times the day after the Russians arrived, while her other niece, 22, 
was raped 15 times the same day. When women of the city pleaded for protection, 
a Russian officer told them to seek shelter in the Catholic Cathedral. After 
hundreds of women and girls were securely inside, the brave sons of mother 
Russia entered and "playing the organ and ringing the bells, kept up a foul orgy 
through the night, raping all the women, some more than 30 times. [3] 

A Catholic pastor of Danzig states: "They even violated eight-year-old girls and 
shot boys who tried to shield their mothers." 

It was the same in all regions overrun by the Communist Armies. When Berlin 
fell the Commander told his Russian soldiers the women of the city were theirs, 
to help themselves. They did! The only escape the women had was suicide. 

The following is an eye-witness account of what the Russians did in eastern 
Germany written by a veteran American newspaperman who had been taken 
prisoner by the Germans in Paris and later freed by the Russians with whom he 
stayed for nearly three months as they swept over eastern Germany and on to 
Berlin and beyond: 

"REDS TERRORIZE CONQUERED WITH RAPE AND DEATH 
"London, August 4, 1945 - As our long line of British Army lories (trucks) 
carrying American, British, and French liberated prisoners of war from the 
Russian to the main Anglo-American zone of Germany rolled through the main 
street of Brahlsdorf, the last Russian occupied-town, a pretty blond girl darted 
from the crowd of Germans watching us and made a dash for our truck. 
"Clinging with both hands to the tailboard, she made a desperate effort to climb 
in. But we were driving too fast and the board was too high. After being dragged 
several hundred yards she had to let go and fell on the cobblestone street. 
"That scene was a dramatic illustration of the state of terror in which women in 
Russian-occupied eastern Germany were living. All these women, Germans, 
Polish, Jewish, and even Russian girls 'freed' from Nazi slave camps were 
dominated by one desperate desire - to escape from the Red zone." 
"In the district around our internment camp - the territory comprising the towns 
of Schlawe, Lauenburg, and Buckow and hundreds of larger villages - Red 
soldiers during the first weeks of their occupation raped every woman and girl 
between the ages of 12 and 60. That sounds exaggerated but it is the simple 
truf/i." (emphasis added) 

"The only exceptions were girls who managed to remain in hiding in the woods or 
who had the presence of mind to feign illness - typhoid, dyptheria or some other 
infectious disease. Flushed with victory - and often with wine found in the cellars 
of rich Pomeranian land owners - the Reds searched every house for women, 
cowing them with pistols or tommy guns, and carried them into their tanks or 



trucks. 

"Husbands and fathers who attempted to protect their women folk were shot 

down and girls offering extreme resistance were murdered. 

"Some weeks after the invasion, Red 'political commissions' began a tour of the 

countryside ostensibly in search of members of the Nazi party. In every village 

the woman were told to report for examination of papers to these commissions, 

which looked them over and detained those with sex appeal. The youngest and 

prettiest were taken by the officers and the rest left to the mercy of the privates. 

"This reign of terror lasted as long as I was with the Reds in Pomerania. Several 

girls whom I had known during my capti\dty committed suicide. Others died after 

having been raped by ten soldiers in succession. 

"In an isolated farmhouse where my French comrade and myself spent three 

months after joining the Reds, there were eight young girls from neighboring 

villages hiding from the Reds. One was always on watch and when the Russians 

were seen approaching they scampered off into a nearby woods and hid in the 

dense underbrush. This sometimes happened several times daily and the girls 

never had a quiet moment but while we were there the Reds never discovered 

them. 

"All of these girls already had been raped and three of them - one a little girl of 13 

- were pregnant. 

"Inevitably the Red occupation is having a disastrous effect on the morality of the 

inhabitants and the existing conditions of anarchy will exert an e\il influence for 

years. Many woman have been infected with venereal diseases and now a very 

few youthful girls have joined the Reds for pleasure and food and are helping 

them spot their compatriots. 

"Whenever possible, girls attach themselves to liberated Anglo-American or 

French prisoners of war for protection against the Russians. Curiously, the Reds 

seemed to have a special code of honor in this respect - they will take an Allied 

prisoner's watch but won't touch his girl. 

"When the Red Army starts a big offensive its commanders held out prospects of 

unrestricted rape and pillage as encouragement to the troops, but later they try to 

stem the tide of lust - not on grounds of humanity but because it threatens to 

undermine discipline. 

"Squadrons of Cossacks, used by the Reds as they were by the Tsar, as mounted 

police, periodically surrounded villages in Pomerania and searched all the houses 

for deserters and stragglers who had remained behind with women. The Cossacks 

mercilessly drove the soldiers off to jail with their 'nagaikas' - Cossack whips - but 

they kept the women for their own pleasure. "[4] 

In refusing Yamashita's plea for clemency General MacArthur in the following 
words condemned the Japanese leader for his maltreatment of the defenseless: 

"The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and 
unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being. When he violates this 
sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the very fabric of 
international society. The traditions of fighting men are long and honorable. They 
are based on the noblest of human traits - sacrifice. "[5] 

The Russians were not alone in violating these principles. Police records of 
Stuttgart show that during the French occupation, 1,198 women were raped and 
eight men violated by French troops, mostly Moroccans. Dr. Karl Hartenstein, 
prelate of the Evangelical church in the city estimated the number at 5,000. Frau 
Schumacher, secretary of the police woman's section, in submitting a 
documented report on numerous rapings, said that on the night the French 



evacuated the city a child of 9 was raped and killed, her mother also raped and 
shot, and her father killed by Moroccans. In the town of Vailhingen, with a 
population of 12,000, for example, 500 cases of rape were reported.[6] So it went 
in areas occupied by the French. 

While a good number of American troops have resisted the example of others and 
deported themselves in a manner becoming their Christian backgrounds, the 
record for our occupation forces as a whole is dark. 

An Associated Press dispatch from Nuernberg, Germany, quotes a letter which 
appeared in STARS AND STRIPES written by Capt. Frederick B. Eutsler, 
Chaplain of the 478th United States port battalion, charging that public behavior 
of American troops in Germany had become deplorable. He urged that the 
newspaper "launch a crusade against this disgraceful conduct which is earning a 
bad name for our army," and added, "I refer particularly to the assumption of 
many GI's that every German woman is immoral and it is their privilege to force 
their attentions on these women and insult them with indecent proposals. [7] 

In April, 1946, the military authorities found it necessary to "crack down" and 
ordered stricter adherence to soldierly standards so as not to "discredit" the "fine 
performance of our troops in general."[8] 

That same month an anonymous staff sergeant wrote in STARS AND STRIPES a 
charge that married men in the army were afraid to bring their wives to Germany 
because many American soldiers behaved like "supercharged wolves" toward 
women in public. He wrote: "Wise up, men. The hardest part of the war is now 
being fought, not with tommy guns, but with personalities. Let's show the 
Germans that we are men, not pigs." 

In reporting the latter, Edward P. Morgan of the Chicago Daily News foreign 
service wrote: 

"whether he knew it or not the sergeant aired a subject which long has been a 
sore spot with American - and other - women in the European theatre. Ask 
almost any woman correspondent who has been around Europe at all and she will 
tell you reluctantly that the conduct of the average American soldier in public 
toward women is "disgraceful" compared to the reserve and discipline of his 
British, Russian, and French Allies. 

"Now that spring has come to Bavaria, one of the favorite pastimes of the GI's in 
Nuremberg seems to be to drive slowly along the curb in jeeps and reach out and 
pat the posteriors of startled frauleins."[9] 

When wives of men in our occupation forces arrived in Germany it became 
necessary, for their protection against indecent advances by American men, to 
wear special badges on their arms to distinguish them from German women. 

One of the consequences of the immoralities of howling G.I. wolf packs is an 
upsurge in venereal diseases which has reached epidemic proportions. Before we 



arrived, although the rate had increased with the return of German soldiers from 
France and North Africa, it was still moderate and well under control. After our 
arrival, contamination soared. In December, 1945, only 7 per cent of German 
civilians receiving venereal disease treatment were men; by August, 1946, 
however, men constituted 41 per cent of the patients. [10] In other words, 
contamination had spread from our troops to the German women and finally to 
German men. 

A large proportion of the contamination has originated with colored American 
troops which we have stationed in great numbers in Germany and among whom 
the rate of venereal infection is many times greater than among white troops. In 
July, 1946, the current rate of infections among white soldiers was 190 per 1,000 
men per annum, meaning that slightly less than one in five would be infected in 
the course of a year. In contrast the rate among negro troops stationed in the 
American zone of Germany was 771 per thousand![ii] In speaking of this general 
problem, Lee Hills, Chicago Daily News foreign correspondent, writes: 

"Two of the biggest headaches in the American occupation of Germany are 
problems we brought with us. One is the extreme youth and inexperience our 
army men . . . The other problem - and one so politically touchy the War 
Department is afraid to remedy - is the hea\y use of Negro American troops. The 
result, despite some superb Army leadership at the top, is that American prestige 
has steadily dropped from its V-E Day peak. 

"The top men in Germany, almost without exception, think it's a mistake to have 
so many (42,000) Negro troops here. 'They're simply not trained and disciplined 
for this job, which is vastly more complicated and delicate than fighting,' said one 
general. 'They have a higher crime rate, a venereal disease rate several times that 
of the white soldier, and a worse record for mischief in general. . . Frankly, the 
worst problem comes from our colored troops going with white German girls. 
This stirs bitter hatred among German men. Many of our own soldiers feel almost 
as strongly about it."'[l2] 

That the German women do not accept advances from American troops out of 
choice but rather out of sternest necessity is shown by the close connection 
between the venereal disease rate and availability of food. As one correspondent 
writes: 

"Statistics show that the venereal rate is related to the food supply of the German 
civilians during our occupation. After the winter's supply of potatoes was issued 
to the Germans last fall, there was a drop in the number of soldiers infected. As 
frauleins became more hungry, more soldiers were infected. Ration cuts last 
spring also were reflected in higher venereal figures. "[13] 

The German press broke its long silence on the subject of venereal contamination 
in a front page editorial in the NEUE ZEIT, a Soviet licensed Berlin newspaper. 
The author, a young woman editor named Renate Lengnick, whose husband had 
not returned from the American zone of occupation, where he was a prisoner of 
war, struck at the collapse in moral foundations for sex relations: She wrote: 



"There are husbands and sweethearts who have not yet returned. Many never will 
return. There are girls who will never have husbands. There is unemployment. 
Apprenticeships are empty promises. There is little to inspire hope. 
"Thirty-five per cent of the civilian venereal disease \dctims are girls under 20. 
For most of them it was desperation that turned them to sex indulgence. They 
needed food, clothing, and shelter. Most important of what they lacked was hope 
for a normal, decent life. 

"Doctors and police must continue their campaign of eradication without 
abatement. We must also rescue the spirit as well as the bodies of youth from 
demoralization . " [ I4] 

The main difference between American and Russian methods of ravishing the 
unconditionally surrendered women of Germany is the American capitalistic, free 
economy touch. THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, for December 5, 1945, reports: 

"The American provost marshal. Lieutenant Colonel Gerald F. Beane, said that 
rape represents no problem to the military police because 'a bit of food, a bar of 
chocolate, or a bar of soap seems to make rape unnecessary.' Think that over if 
you want to understand what the situation is in Germany." 

Dr. George N. Schuster, President of Hunter College, charged, after a visit to the 
American zone: 

"You have said it all when you say that Europe is now a place where woman has 
lost her perennial fight for decency because the indecent alone live." 
"Except for those who can establish contacts with members of the armed forces, 
Germans can get nothing from soap to shoes. "[15] 

L.F. Filewood, writing in the WEEKLY REVIEW, London, Oct. 5, 1945, stated: 

"Young girls, unattached, wander about and freely offer themselves, for food or 
bed . . . Very simply they have one thing left to sell, and they sell it ... As a way of 
d>ing it may be worse than starvation, but it will put off dj^ing for months - or 
even years. "[16] 

Significantly, the Potsdam Declaration declares: 

"The Allied armies are in occupation of the whole of Germany and the German 
people have begun to atone for the terrible crimes committed under the 
leadership of those whom in the hour of their success, they openly approved and 
blindly obeyed." 

It fails to declare that the crimes to be committed by the Allied armies of 
occupation would eclipse those of which the Nazi armies have been accused. Now 
that the war is over and the heat of combat has died down enough to enable us to 
view the cold facts again, it must be brought home to the American people that 
much of what they have been led to believe was born of propaganda, that the 
German army, for example, actually behaved itself very correctly toward the 
people of occupied territories whose governments were signatories of the Hague 
and Geneva Conventions. The facts are now well known, and are beyond dispute. 



despite the opposite picture previously painted in the press as part of the 
horrendous business of war. 

William L. Shirer, in his Berlin Diary (p. 412), on June 17, 1940, in the first flush 
of German occupation, described how many French women had fled Paris for 
fear of what the German armies might do to them. 

"It seems," he wrote, "the Parisians actually believe the Germans would rape the 
women and do worse to the men . . . The ones who stayed are all the more 
amazed at the very correct behavior of the troops - so far." 

And their behavior never changed. 

Frederick C. Crawford, President of Thompson Products, after a tour of 
inspection in which he, with others of the War Department, visited areas where 
the Germans had been in occupation for four years, in his "REPORT FROM THE 
WAR FRONT", said: 

"The Germans tried to be careful in their dealings with the people . . . We were 
told that if a citizen attended strictly to business and took no political or 
underground action against the occupying army, he was treated with 

correctness. "[17] 



Reference Notes: 

[I] From "In den Haenden unserer russischen Allierten," Der Wanderer, April 11, 1946. 
[2] Time, Jan. 29, 1945. 

[3] Nord-Amerika, Dec. 6, 1945, as summarized by Dr. A.J. App, Slave-Laboring German 

Prisoners of War. 

[4] B.J. Kospoth, London, August 4, 1945, Washington Times Herald, and Congressional Record, 

Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11554. 

[5] Walter Trohan, Washington, Feb. 6, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Sersdce. 

[6] David Darrah, Stuttgart, Germany, July 24, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Associated Press, Nuremberg, Germany, Feb. 24, 1946. 

[8] Associated and United Press, Frankfurt, Germany, April 24, 1946. 

[9] Edward P. Morgan, Nuremberg, Germany, April 3, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[10] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug. 17, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[II] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 22, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[12] Lee Hills, Frankfurt, Germany, Aug. 8, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[13] Same as No. 11. 

[14] Same as No. 10. 

[15] Dr. A.J. App, Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe. 

[16] Catholic Digest, December, 1945. 

[17] Requoted from Dr. A.J. App, Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe. 



Chapter VI: 
THE PEOPLE HUNGER 

In view of all that has happened in Germany, it is small wonder that the people 
have been overtaken by extreme shortages of basic necessities, especially food. 

Months after the war had ended and the conquerors had assumed complete 
control of the German government and therefore responsibility for the German 
people and their future, the Bishop of Chichester, quoting a noted German 
pastor, said: 

"Thousands of bodies are hanging in the trees in the woods around Berhn and 
nobody bothers to cut them down. Thousands of corpses are carried into the sea 
by the Oder and Elbe Rivers - one doesn't notice it any longer. Thousands and 
thousands are starving in the highways. . . Children roam the highways alone, 
their parents shot, dead, lost."[l] 

A wireless to the New York Times in April, 1946, says: 

"Like Russia's half-wild vagabonds after World War I, Germany's youth is on the 
road . . . because there was not enough to eat at home. Homeless, without papers 
or ration cards . . . these groups rob Germans and displaced persons. They are . . . 
wandering aimlessly, disillusioned, dissolute, diseased, and without 
guidance." [2] 

Despite conditions, the German people are putting up a brave struggle for 
existence. After a five-week tour of Europe, including Germany, Malcolm Muir, 
publisher of BUSINESS WEEK, told the Union League Club of Chicago: 

"The Germans are making every effort to help themselves ... It is not unusual to 
see a milk cow hitched to a plow, a woman leading the cow and a small boy 
guiding the plow."[3] 

What harvesting machinery remains is mostly small, old fashioned and run 
down, often useless for want of parts. Draught work is supplied by animals and 
men. Oxen are used where available, and a horse and cow hitched together are 
common. It is not unusual to see a wagon of straw moving along a road with one 
or two old men at the tongue and a flock of women and children pushing. One 
observer writes: 

"The plight of the Germans is epitomized by scenes in the stubble fields, which 
are thoroughly gleaned by the owners. Villagers, old men, women and children, 
may be seen picking up one grain at a time from the ground to be carried home in 
a sack the size of a housewife's shopping bag. "[4] 

Crop yields have been reduced by the five year fertilizer famine, which continues 
and the fact, as mentioned before, that the soil for the most part has been worked 
for 1,000 to 2,000 years. 



Food reserves which were ample when the war ended were soon depleted, thanks 
in part to deliberate destruction by invading armies, and, in the case of the 
Russians and French, to armies of occupation living off the land. When we first 
invaded Normandy we were surprised by the large stores of food we found. It was 
the same elsewhere. Although his statement contrasted sharply with the current 
propaganda which had all Europe starving. Prof. Theodore Shultz of the 
University of Chicago, in November, 1943, had said that continental Europe that 
year had harvested good crops, that "farm production had been so well 
maintained despite the war that Europe will meet 90 to 95 per cent of her food 
requirements in the year after peace is declared."[5] Although distribution was 
disrupted at the end of the war, aggregate food stocks were large. But under 
Allied management they were soon dissipated. 

The situation, worsened by the loss of the eastern "bread basket" and the large 
number of displaced persons and evacuees from the east, became critical and 
then catastrophic. 

For six months our military govemment refused to supply any food from the 
outside to supplement the vanishing German stocks; however, the terrible 
consequences of this policy ultimately got under the tough hides of the 
occupation authorities to such an extent that by December they appealed to the 
U.S. Government to send sufficient food to prevent universal starvation. Relief 
was finally promised, and after many heartbreaking delays, a dribble arrived. 

The intensity of the famine through which Germany is passing can be guaged by 
comparing the German diet with our own and with what experiments prove to be 
the minimum to maintain life. 

An average slice of bread yields around 200 calories. The average American diet 
is 3,000 calories per person per day. To maintain weight and health, a 
lumberjack needs as much as 7,600 calories, an active woman at least 3,000. [6] 
Herbert Hoover, famed for his work in famine relief, says that 2,200 calories "is a 
minimum in a nation for healthy human beings. "[7] 

Various studies have been made to determine the effects of subnormal diets and 
the limits of starvation. The University of Minnesota conducted a test during the 
war in which a group of conscentious objectors voluntarily lived for several 
months on a daily diet of 1,650 calories. Within six months each man lost a fourth 
of his weight and experienced fainting spells, dizziness, and a feeling of always 
being cold. Their hearts shrank and some had to have two blankets even in 
summer. All lost three-fourths of their energy and work ability. "Each individual 
gradually tended to withdraw to himself, to shun social companionship . . . The 
main interest in life became the next meal. "[8] 

Northwestern University Medical School conducted a similar experiment with 
similar effects. A diet with protein and vitamin contents 40 per cent and 25 per 
cent of normal, respectively, was tried with results which in the words of Dr. 



Andrew C. Ivy, "hold out a dismal prospect for the people of food-restricted 
countries." He said little change was noted in the patients during the first month 
and a half; "after six weeks, however, they showed a slow, progressive 
deterioration in physical and mental health, accompanied by loss of endurance, 
skin lesions, leg pains, and mental slowness." It was difficult to get the subjects 
back to normal: "the time of recovery was in no case less than a month."[9] 

In response to a question on the subject of minimum diets, the National Research 
Council states: 

"The best evidence available to the Board would indicate that adult European 
males reduced to an intake on the average of 1,400 to 1,700 calories for a period 
of six months will suffer: 1) Reduction of capacity for work (endurance) to the 
point where only very light work can be performed effectively, moderate heavy 
work, and heavy work not at all. 2) Loss of power of mental concentration 
associated with apathy, depression, and a high level of irritability. 3) Increased 
susceptibility to infections and contagious diseases . . . The ability of a population 
to maintain or increase its own community production of food, not to speak of 
other goods, would be diminished. In the second place, there would be less hope 
of establishing acceptable community political organization. In the third place, a 
population subjected to such a low level of food supply might be expected to 
develop epidemics which might spread to other nations and consequently 
represent a hazard to the entire world. "[lO] 

These facts prove the excruciating character of the rations imposed upon the 
German populace by the conquerors. In the American zone where the level has 
been consistently higher than in other zones the base ration since V-E Day has 
ranged between a high of 1,550 to a low of 1,180 calories per person per diem. 
Here is the record: before November 11, 1945, 1,262 calories; from that date 
through the following March, 1,550 calories; from April 1, 1946, through most of 
the following May, 1,275 calories; from then on through most of the summer, 
1,180 calories. In August, 1946, it was raised to 1,350 calories, and in the fall was 
restored to 1,550 calories where it was supposed to remain during the winter of 
1946-47- 

Herbert Hoover in April, 1946, in commenting on the European situation in 
general called the 1,550 calorie level a "grim and dangerous base" and said: "At 
this level we believe most of the adults can come through the short period of four 
months until the next harvest. The children's health will become suceptible to 
disease. Many of the children and aged will fall by the wayside."[ii] The 
consequences of keeping the base German rations at or below the 1,500 calorie 
level since V-E Day are not difficult to imagine. Although some of the German 
workers, such as farmers and miners, are allowed somewhat higher rations, the 
base ration applies to the great majority, including housewives and children. 
Such reports as the following made by an official of the food branch of the 
American Military Government should therefore cause no surprise.[i2] 

"The greatest famine catastrophe of recent centuries is upon us in central Europe. 
Our Government is letting down our military government in the food deliveries it 



promised, although what Generals Clay, Draper, and Hester asked for and were 
promised was the barest minimum for survival of the people. We will be forced to 
reduce the rations from 1,550 calories to 1,000 or less calories. 
"The few buds of democracy will be burned out in the agony of death of the aged, 
the women, and the children. 

"The British and we are going on record as the ones who let the Germans starv-e. 
The Russians will release at the height of the famine substantial food stores they 
have locked up (300,000 to 400,000 tons of sugar, large quantities of potatoes). 
"Aside from the inhumanity involved, it is so criminally stupid to give such a 
performance of incredible fumbling before the eyes of the world. It makes all the 
many hard-working officers of the Office of Military' Government, Food and 
Agricultural Branch, ashamed. 

Karl Brandt 

Berlin, Germany, March 18, 1946." 

The following is taken from a report prepared by the German Central 
Administration for Health, a German agency created by the Russian occupation 
authorities: 

"The people hunger. They hold only the immediate present responsible for their 
condition. They are without the energy to trace the links of causes. They have 
even forgotten Hitler. Beyond the immediate present their power to reproduce 
even memory' does not reach. There is growing as though by psychological 
compulsion, a mass hysteria, with a thousand different symptoms of drug 
addiction, drunkenness, pers-ersities, sadism, murder and infantilism. . . The 
situation is reaching a generally psychopathological state, through chronic 
hunger. We are seeing aberrations such as were previously known only among 
stranded and starving sailors in lifeboats, or thirsting persons forgotten by 
caravans in desert sands. It is increasingly impossible to discover in the masses of 
the people opinions. They have only animal urges. 

"The explanation of this mass phenomenon, this mental and spiritual paralysis, is 
physical. They are emaciated to the bone. Their clothes hang loose on their 
bodies, the lower extremities are like the bones of a skeleton, their hands shake as 
though with palsy, the muscles of the arms are withered, the skin lies in folds, 
and is without elasticity, the joints spring out as though broken. 
"The weight of the women of average height and build has fallen way below 110 
pounds. Often women of child-bearing age weigh no more than 65 pounds. The 
number of still-born children is approaching the number of those born alive, and 
an increasing proportion of these die in a few days. Even if they come into the 
world of normal weight, they start immediately to lose weight and die shortly. 
Very often the mothers cannot stand the loss of blood in childbirth and perish. 
Infant mortality has reached the horrifying height of 90 per cent."[l3] 

The following dispatch from Wiesbaden, Germany, portrays the lot which has 
befallen the children: 

"Those fat, round cheeked, chubby-legged German children so well known in 

picture and story - remember them? 

"They're of another era. You do not see them now. 

"I sat with a mother, watching her eight -year-old daughter placing with a doll and 

carriage, her only playthings. Then she came to supper - hard brown bread, three 

slim slices of pressed sausage, a cup of coffee substitute. Her legs were tiny, the 

joints protruding. Her arms had no flesh. Her skin drawn taut across the bones. 



the eyes dark, deep-set and tired. 

'"She doesn't look well,' I said. 

'"Six years of war,' the mother replied, in that quiet toneless manner so common 

here now. 'She hasn't had a chance. None of the children have. Her teeth are not 

good. She catches illness so easily. 

'"She laughs and plays - yes; but soon she is tired. She never has known' - and the 

mother's eyes filled with tears - 'what it is not to be hungry.' '"Was it this bad 

during the war?' I asked. 

'"Not this bad,' she replied, 'but not good at all. And now I am told the bread 

ration is to be less. What are we to do; all of us? 

'"For six years we suffered. We love our country. My husband was killed - his 

second war. My oldest son is a prisoner somewhere in France. My other boy lost a 

leg. That's what the Nazis did for us. And now . . .' 

"By this time she was weeping. I gave this little girl a Hershey bar and she wept - 

pure joy - as she held it. By this time I wasn't feeling too chipper myself. . . But it 

gives you an idea."[l4] 

Dr. Lawrence Meyer, Executive Secretary of the Lutheran Church, Missouri 
Synod, after returning from Germany said on January 13, 1946: 

"Germany literally swarms with children. Eight children per family is nothing 
extraordinary'. Millions of these children must die before there is enough food. In 
Frankfurt at a children's hospital there have been set aside 25 out of 100 children. 
These will be fed and kept alive. It is better to feed 25 enough to keep them alive 
and let 75 stars-e then to feed the 100 for a short while and let them all 
star\'e."[l5] 

Dorothy Thompson reported: 

"In Berlin, in August, 1945, out of 2,866 children born, 1,148 died, and it was 
summer, and the food more plentiful than now . . . From Vienna a reliable source 
reports that . . . infant mortality is approaching 100 per cent."[l6] 

Edd Johnson of P.M., on October 3, 1945, wrote from Germany: 

"The infant mortality rate is 16 times as high today as in 1943 . . . There is going 
to be a definite age group elimination. Most children under 10 and people over 60 
cannot survive the coming winter."[l7] 

A United States Press dispach from Berlin, February 8, 1946, reads: 

"Official announcement that two German women bad been murdered and their 
flesh sold on a food black market aroused fear today that organized gangs of 
human butchers were at work here. Spokesmen for the criminal investigation 
department of the German police said only two cases of murder-for-flesh bad 
been established but that it was possible that butchers were operating on a much 
larger scale, killing their victims and peddling their flesh in local black 
markets."[l8] 

Hal Foust wrote from Berlin, February 20, 1946: 



"Germans are dying in masses, not so much from starvation alone as from 
illnesses aggravated by acute malnutrition. "[19] 

A United Press dispatch from Hamburg, Germany, March 22, 1946, reads: 

"33 workmen collapsed from hunger today - the first signs of stars-ation were 
apparent in this area - with hostility rising among the Hamburg working classes, 
and food riots continued in Hamburg for the fourth straight day."[20] 

Dorothy Thompson wrote: 

"The children of Europe are stars- ing. Six years of war, indescribable destruction, 
and the lunatic policies which have added to the disintegration inherited from the 
collapse of the Nazi regime have done their work. Germany, and with it Europe, is 
skidding into the abyss. 

"The facts are at last being revealed through what has amounted to a conspiracy 
of silence here . . . This war was fought by the West in the name of Christian 
civilization, the Four Freedoms, and the dignity of man against those who were 
perpetrating crimes against humanity. But policies which must inevitably result 
in the postwar extermination of tens of thousands of children are also "crimes 
against humanity."[2l] 

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower in November, 1945, solemnly warned 
that if our military victory is to have lasting significance, the United States and 
other nations must "assist the war devastated countries back on their feet" and 
added: 

"If this bitter situation is not to become so disastrous as to make me wonder if it 
was worthwhile to have taken up arms against the Nazis, we in the United States - 
which is truly the land of plenty as compared to Europe - must be prepared to 
discharge a heavy responsibility." [2 2] 

After giving Herbert Hoover, serving as Chairman of President Truman's Famine 
Investigating Commission, a grim report of Germany's food situation on April 13, 
1946, Generals Joseph T. McNarney and Lucius Clay said in a formal statement: 

"Political stabilty cannot develop under conditions which create political apathy. 
Political apathy can be overcome in a population which must devote its full effort 
to the daily search for food. Political stability in Germany is closely related to 
political stability in the rest of Europe. 

"German transport facilities are required to move relief supplies and exports 
across Europe. German workmen must be used to man available transport 
facilities. 

"German coal is vital to Europe. German potash, salt, lumber, spare parts, and 
other products are needed throughout Europe. Coal production in the Ruhr has 
declined substantially since the recent food cut. Without food Germany cannot 
produce coal. Without coal Germany cannot produce fertilizer and unless it 
produces fertilizer it cannot improve its food supply. "[2 3] 

The Statement went on to point out that the American zone even in normal times 
had been a deficit area with regard to food, requiring 2,000,000 tons of imports 



in 1943-44. It said that the German economic pump must be primed with food 
imports, because the American zone and other western areas cannot produce 
enough to sustain life even at starvation levels. 

Ten months after V-E Day, only 600,000 tons of food had been imported into our 
zone by AMG, or about one ounce per person per meal. Yet AMG officers asked 
GI's to remind the Germans they owe America a debt of gratitude for feeding 
them. [24] 



Evidence that the German Famine is Deliberate 

Senator Homer E. Capehart of Indiana in an address before the United States 
Senate February 5, 1946, said in part: 

"The fact can no longer be suppressed, namely, the fact that it has been and 
continues to be, the deliberate policy of a confidential and conspirational clique 
within the policy-making circes of this government to draw and quarter a nation 
now reduced to abject miserj' . 

"In this process this clique, like a pack of hyenas struggling over the bloody 
entrails of a corpse, and inspired by a sadistic and fanatical hatred, are 
determined to destroy the German nation and the German people, no matter 
what the consequences. 

"At Potsdam the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics solemnly signed the following declaration 
of principles and purposes: 

"'It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people.' 
"Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations 
which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of 
ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam 
Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately 
engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolical skill, that 
the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap. 
"For nine months now this administration has been carrying on a deliberate 
policy of mass stars- ation without any distinction between the innocent and the 
helpless and the guilty alike. 

"The first issue has been and continues to be purely humanitarian. This \icious 
clique within this administration that has been responsible for the policies and 
practices which have made a madhouse of central Europe has not only betrayed 
our American principles, but they have betrayed the GI's who have suffered and 
died, and they continue to betray the American GI's who have to continue their 
dirty work for them. 

"The second issue that is involved is the effect this tragedy in Germany has 
already had on the other European countries. Those who have been responsible 
for this deliberate destruction of the German state and this criminal mass 
starvation of the German people have been so zealous in their hatred that all 
other interests and concerns have been subordinated to this one obsession of 
revenge. In order to accomplish this it mattered not if the liberated countries in 
Europe suffered and starved. To this point this clique of conspirators have 
addressed themselves: 'Germany is to be destroyed. What happens to other 
countries of Europe in the process is of secondary importance.'" 

These remarks were interspersed with a mass of supporting evidence. 



There can be no question that there has been a deliberate attempt to keep the 
facts from the American public. Senator Eastland of Mississippi, for example, in a 
stirring address to the United States Senate December 3, 1945, exposing the 
chaotic conditions in Germany, told of the great difficulty he had encountered in 
gaining access to the official report on conditions in the Reich made by Calvin 
Hoover. He said the State Department at first refused to furnish him a copy of the 
report, but that through the intercession of a high official in the department he 
had been able to obtain it, but only "with the understanding and the promise 
received from me first that the information therein v^ould be made available to 
the people of this country." Senator Eastland continued: 

"There appears to be a conspiracy of silence to conceal from our people the true 
picture of conditions in Europe, to secrete from us the fact regarding conditions 
of the continent and information as to our policies toward the German people . . . 
Are the real facts withheld because our policies are so cruel that the American 
people would not endorse them? 

"What have we to hide, Mr. President? Why should these facts be withheld from 
the people of the United States? There cannot possibly be any valid reason for 
secrecy. Are we following a policy of vindictive hatred, a policy which would not 
be endorsed by the American people as a whole if they knew true conditions? 
"Mr. President, I should be less than honest if I did not state frankly that the 
picture is so much worse, so much more confused, than the American people 
suspect, that I do not know of any source that is capable of producing the 
complete factual account of the true situation into which our policies have taken 
the American people. The truth is that the nations of central, southern, and 
eastern Europe are adrift on a flood of anarchy and chaos. "[25] 

Victor Gollancz, influential left-wing British publisher and pamphleteer, in his 
book "Leaving Them to Their Fate - the Ethics of Starvation," after marshalling 
voluminous proof explains the starvation in these words: 

"The plain fact is when Spring is in the English air we are starving the German 
people, and we are starving them not deliberately in the sense we prefer their 
death to our own inconvenience. 

"Others, including ourselves, are to keep or be given comforts while the Germans 
lack the bare necessities of existence. If it is a choice between discomfort for 
another and suffering for the German, the German must suffer; if between 
suffering for another and death for the German, the German must die." 

He describes the ample British diet and stocks of food while the Germans starve 
and says: 

"Stocks of food and feeding stuffs in this countrj' owned and controlled by the 
minister of food, exclusive of stocks on farms or held by secondary wholesalers 
and manufacturers, were estimated to total on the last day of March no less than 
4,000,000 tons." 

He rejects the thesis that we should starve the Germans because they would have 
starved us had they won, on the ground that those who reason as the Nazis are no 
better than the Nazis. He could have added that starvation of children of an 



enemy country is to admit having enemy children. One leading daily thinks Mr. 
Gollancz fails to plumb the depths of the infamy: 

"On the contrary it [the starvation] is the product of foresight. It was dehberately 
planned at Yalta by Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, and the program in all its 
brutality was later confirmed by Truman, Attlee, and Stalin . . . The intent to 
starve the German people to death is being carried out with a remorselessness 
unknown in the western world since the Mongol conquest. "[26] 

Ample food stocks nearer to Germany even than those in England existed while 
the Germans starved. On the same page of a newspaper in the autumn of 1945 
two articles appeared under the following headlines: 

(1) "WEST GERMANS FACE HARD FIGHT AGAINST FAMINE" 

(2) "COME AND GET IT, DENMARK TELLS HUNGRY EUROPE" 
The article under the latter reads: 

"The exhausted Danish farming industry succeeded in increasing pigs to nearly 

two million, 60 per cent of the prewar stock, and last week 45,000 live cattle were 

offered to slaughtering, of which 32,000 had to be refused as the warehouses are 

filled to capacity and no shipping was available. 

"Denmark has, in vain, drawn the attention of Britain, the United States, and 

UNRRA to the facts, at the same time fonvarding proposals, but no reply has 

been received so far. 

"The huge cold storage facilities in north Germany are not being utilized, and 

refrigerator ships are l>ing idle in north German harbors. At the same time 

slaughtering houses are forced to return live cattle to farmers, the cattle now 

consuming fodder that otherwise would be available to further increase 

production, as a result of the failure of distribution machinery. 

"Denmark would welcome it if public opinion would induce the united shipping 

pool, UNRRA and other concerned agencies to overcome difficulties and supply 

shipping essential to emptying 'Europe's bursting larder."'[27] 

An Associated Press dispatch from Copenhagen a month earlier had told the 
same story: 

"while the rest of Europe hungers for meat, Denmark has 3,000 to 4,000 tons of 
surplus beef weekly which cannot be exported for lack of shipping space. 
Hoegsbro Holm, permanent secretary of the agricultural council of Denmark, 
said today that for the last six weeks farmers have had as many as 16,000 head of 
cattle ready for slaughter, but Denmark has been able to use and export only 
10,000. Holm said, 'We have been trying to get transport for at least two months 
but to date nothing is ready to take the meat. '"[28] 

Another report, by Robert Conway of the New York News, written March 22, 
1946, from Rome, under the headline: "FINDS EUROPEAN 'SHORTAGES' ARE 
EXAGGERATION reads: 

"Coincident with the arrival of former President Hoover on his food mission, it is 
timely and \ital that the American public should receive the simple facts 
regarding the grossly exaggerated talk of shortages in Europe. 
"England is not starving, although food is short. France is better off than 
England, and Italy is better off than France. The rich and the racketeers are 



eating sumptuously in London, Paris, and Rome, and the poor in Italy have 
rations equivalent to the diet enjoyed in 1937 at the peak of Mussolini's 
prosperity era. 

"England is the only one of the three countries which is making an honest, 
serious effort to ration food and clothing and control prices. France is doing 
better than Italy, but the black market in Paris is flourishing in all lines of goods. 
Italy is exploiting everything in a fantastic black market based on the contempt of 
the majority of the nation for the ignorance of Allied - chiefly American - officers 
of language, customs, and the traditional system of bartering and begging. 
"In addition, some officers are flagrantly cooperating in the various rackets." 
"I found it possible to eat well and cheaply in London, Canterbury, and other 
English towns. I found a similar situation in Paris and its environs. Then I came 
to Italy which is a veritable land of plenty, although in all three countries black 
market restaurants supplied steaks, eggs, fruits and other delicacies at prices 
equivalent to those of restaurants in New York. 

"The task of ferreting out the truth of the food and economic situation is a 
difficult one, and unless a better and more experienced personnel is supplied for 
the purpose than is evident in the permanent allied administration here, a 
distorted and inadequate picture will be given to Mr. Hoover. "[29] 

That the general European famine advertised by Washington is for the most part 
German, as reported by Senator Butler of Nebraska after a trip through 33 
countries, is indicated by the fact that UNRRA has been used "to finance 
governments and not to feed the hungry." UNRRA has in effect supported these 
governments, mostly satellites of the Soviet Union, by supplying them with 
billions of dollars worth of goods which they, in turn, have sold to those with the 
money to buy, thus bringing to themselves handsome revenues in lieu of 
taxes. [30] In Germany, where there is widespread hunger and poverty, UNRRA is 
specifically forbidden to function for the benefit of any but "displaced persons," 
and then only by making requisitions against the starving Germans. [31] In 
August, 1946, Cyril Osborn, M.P., denounced the so-called relief agency of the 
United Nations as "the biggest racket in Europe." 

For another thing, no Central Red Cross has been permitted to function in the 
stricken Reich. And it is now a matter of history that the Washington 
administration for nearly a year hotly resisted all efforts to bring private relief to 
the Germans, and only permitted a miserable dribble when it finally did allow it, 
at the urgent request of AMG officials. It placed the limit at 2,000 tons a month, 
limiting packages to 11 pounds and 72 inches in girth, with shipping charges of 14 
cents a pound. 

Senator Albert W. Hawkes, of New Jersey had made a strong appeal to the 
President urging that private relief packages be permitted to prevent mass 
starvation of the German people. In his reply, dated December 21, 1945, 
President Truman professed that "there is as yet no possibility of making 
deliveries of individual packages in Germany," because "the postal system and 
the communications and transportation systems of Germany are in the state of 
total collapse." He then said: 



"Our efforts have been directed particularly toward taking care of those who 
fought with us rather than against us - Norwegians, Belgians, the Dutch, the 
Greeks, the Poles, the French. Eventually the enemy countries will be given some 
attention. 

"While we have no desire to be unduly cruel to Germany, I cannot feel any great 
sympathy for those who caused the death of so many human beings by starvation, 
disease, and outright murder, in addition to all the destruction and death of war. 
Perhaps eventually a decent government can be established in Germany so that 
Germany can again take its place in the family of nations. I think that in the 
meantime no one should be called upon to pay for Germany's misfortune except 
Germany itself. 

"Until the misfortunes of those whom Germany oppressed and tortured are 
oblivated [sic], it does not seem right to divert our efforts to Germany itself. I 
admit that there are, off course, many innocent people in Germany who had 
little to do with the Nazi terror. However, the administrative burden of trying to 
locate these people and treat them differently for the rest is one which is almost 
insuperable." (emphasis added)[32] 

This letter makes perfectly clear that we are deliberately discriminating against 
"the Germans," that Mr. Truman expected to be at least a little cruel in his 
treatment of them, and that he had not the slightest consciousness of the German 
children, as such, and the agonies they must suffer, although they surely "had 
little to do with Nazi terror" and certainly could be as easily located as Nazis and 
war criminals. It is difficult, indeed, to see how those responsible for our policy 
can escape condemnation under the following principles laid down by General 
Eisenhower: 

"while I and my subordinates believe that stern justice should be meted out to 
war criminals by proper legal procedure, we would never condone inhuman or 
un-American practices upon the helpless, which is one of the crimes for which 
those war criminals must now stand trial. "[33] 

Michael Foote, M.P., in discussing this question reminded the House of 
Commons that there is an older law than any promulgated at Potsdam for the 
protection of victims or our policy: 

"But who shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better 
for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in 
the depth of the sea."[34] 

It later came out that Russian objection in the Control Council was at least partly 
responsible for our inability to send private relief packages to Germany. Four 
Senators, after being rebuffed at the White House in their request that the mails 
be opened to permit relief packages to Germany, learned that permission to do so 
must meet with unanimous consent of all four occupying powers and that the 
Soviet Union had opposed the idea. The four gave out this information in a 
statement which said in part: 

"The American people should know once and for all that as a result of this 
government's official policy they are being made the unwilling accomplices in the 
crime of mass starvation. How long must we expect Mr. Stalin to deny the 



American people the opportunity to express their native humanitarianism and 
desires?"[35] 

Russia's inhuman truculence was referred to indirectly by General McNarney in a 
letter to Senator Wiley (February 14, 1946). He explained: 

"United States citizens have not been permitted to send indi\ddual gift supphes to 
German nationals, as the establishment of international postal ser\dce, while 
under study, is yet to be effected. 

"Once such agreement has been reached, the distribution of packages within the 
United States zone can be reasonably well met by the parcel post ser\dce which 
has now been reinstalled within Germany." (emphasis added)[36] 

In Other words, the difficulty was a question of agreement, rather than lack of 
facilities. 

In close harmony with Russia's inhuman attitude, which had an ulterior purpose 
as part of a larger program, as we shall see, the "liberal" press has for the most 
part greeted with silence or derision all efforts to publicize the facts concerning 
German prostration and to bring relief to the suffering German masses. Eleanor 
Roosevelt, Senator Connelly, and the late Sidney Hillman, backed by personages 
in AMG, upon visiting Germany professed to see no evidence of starvation or 
suffering beyond what they considered tolerable. The New Republic expressed its 
horror over the possibility that Senator Wherry, who had agitated for a Senate 
investigation of conditions in Europe, including Germany, might become more 
influential. In the New Republic's own words, this was his crime: "His present 
efforts are devoted to getting more food for Germany and Austria." 

In commenting on the New Republic attitude and PM's professed liberalism, 
William Henry Chamberlain, in his excellent article "The Crisis of Liberalism," 
which was entered in the Congressional Record, says: 

"So it becomes a crime, in the eyes of a liberal magazine, to try to ward off what is 
at best acute malnutrition, at worse starv-ation. As to PM, with its loudly 
professed code of humanitarian ethics, it gives a daily exhibition, in its attitude 
toward relief for central Europe, of nazism in reverse, of a positively sadistic 
desire to inflict maximum suffering on all Germans, irrespective of their 
responsibility for Nazi crimes. "[37] 

"Liberals" have, however, indulged in some relief activities. Here is one case, as 
reported by correspondent Philip Warden: 

"Washington, D.C., June 6 (1946) - The emergency food collection committee 
headed by Henry A. Wallace, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, and Herbert Lehman, has 
collected $323,000 in cash and is incurring an estimated $300,000 in 
administrative expenses. Chairman Wallace reported to the Senate Small 
Business' Committee today. 

"Wallace listed among the 'estimated cash requirements' for the two month 
campaign which is expected to wind up by July 1, $75,000 in salaries, $45,000 in 
travel and subsistence claims, $115,000 for publicity, materials, and stationery. 



$28,ooo for communications, and $20,000 in state and metropolitan 
organizational expenses. "[38] 



Reference Notes: 

[I] Congressional Record, Dec. 20, 1945, p. A-6130. 

[2] Wireless to New York Times and Chicago Tribune, Frankfurt, Germany, April 13, 1946. 

[3] The Chicago Sun, June 7, 1946, p. 29. 

[4] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug, 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[5] George Theim, Chicago Daily News Farm Editor, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 4, 1943. 

[6] Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 10, 1945. 

[7] Same as No. 6. 

[8] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Washington, April 26, 1946. 

[9] Chicago Daily News, April 12, 1946. 

[10] Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533. 

[II] Associated Press, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1946. 
[12] Congressional Record, March 29, 1946, pp. 2858-9. 
[13] Congressional Record, March 29, 1946, p. 2865. 

[14] Jack Bell, Wiesbaden, Germany, May 10, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Ser\dce. 

[15] American Economist, Feb. 1946, p. 6. 

[16] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11562. 

[17] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11553. 

[18] United Press, Berlin, Feb. 8, 1946, The Chicago Daily News. 

[19] Hal Foust, Berlin, Feb. 20, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[20] United Press, Hamburg, Germany, March 22, 1946. 

[21] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 1156I. 

[22] Reported by Griffing Barcroft, Washington, Nov. 22, 1945, Chicago Sun Washington Bureau. 

[23] John Thompson, Berlin, April 13, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[24] Associated Press, Berlin, June 22, 1946. 

[25] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11552. 

[26] Chicago Daily Tribune, May 8, 1946. 

[27] Einar Christiansen, Chicago Tribune Press Service, Copenhagen, Denmark, Oct. 19, 1945, 

Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 20, 1945. 

[28] Associated Press, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sept. 16, 1946. 

[29] Robert Conway, Rome, March 22, 1946, wireless to New York News. 

[30] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Washington D.C., Aug. 5, 1946. 

[31] Edd Johnson, Frankfurt, Germany, The Chicago Sun for Nov. 19, 1945. 

[32] Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1946, pp. 530-I. 

[33] Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1946, p. 537. 

[34] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11557. 

[35] Chicago Daily Tribune, Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 1946. 

[36] William Moore, Washington, D.C., Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[37] Congressional Record, May 20, 1946, p. 2953. 

[38] Philip Warden, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 



Chapter VII: 
ECONOMIC TRIBULATION 

It is inconsistent to show solicitude for the welfare of Germany or the German 
people and at the same time to support the Potsdam agreements, because, as we 
have seen, the latter were intended not to help Germany recover but rather to 
prevent her from doing so. Potsdam was based on the Morgenthau Plan and the 
Morgenthau Plan had stipulated: 

"The sole purpose of the mihtary in control of the German economy shall be to 
facilitate military' operations and military occupation. The Allied Military 
Government shall not assume responsibility for such economic problems as price 
controls, rationing, unemployment, production, reconstruction, distribution, 
consumption, housing, or transportation, or take any measures designed to 
maintain or strengthen the German economy, except those which are essential 
to military operations. The responsibility for sustaining the German economy and 
people rests with the German people with such facilities as may be available 
under the circumstances, "(emphasis added) 

"Under the circumstances" must be underscored as meaning an absence of 
essential facilities. The territorial losses and seizures; the program of over- 
crowding through expulsions of millions of eastern Germans; the wholesale 
enslavement of German manpower; the liquidation of German science and 
managerial, technical, and professional classes through de-nazification; the 
settling of the low level of industry decided upon, coupled with the industrial 
sacking and elimination of all German external resources - all these measures on 
top of the war devastation cannot be described as anything but a program to 
throw Germany and her people into a state of collapse. 

But these are not the only acts of repression. Taxes have been raised to 
confiscatory levels which stifle incentives and prevent operation of the free 
enterprise system. They have helped to socialize German economy and kill the 
profit motive. They have corrupted public morals for even the poor must contrive 
to dodge them in order to have enough income to buy shoes. [i] We have refused 
to establish an exchange value for the German mark in terms of other currencies, 
preventing privately handled imports and exports and throwing what little 
external trade there is into the hands of the military government. And instead of 
trying to work out some intelligent plan for the resuscitation of the collapsed 
financial system we have proceeded to make matters far worse by such actions as 
the printing of vast sums of occupation currency which will almost certainly help 
create the 1923 inflation disaster and complete the destruction of the German 
middle class. [2] Such a result would serve the ends of Soviet Russia, but hardly 
those of the other powers. 



Economic Prostration 



It is difficult to imagine the depth of German depression. When the United States 
reached the bottom of 1932, industrial production had fallen to 60 per cent of 
normal. The depression was so severe - the losses so enormous, the 
unemployment so widespread - that it almost brought a revolution. 

Industrial production in Germany a year after V-E Day was 10 per cent of what 
used to be normal. 

Production in our zone has gradually risen until it reached a high of about 12 per 
cent of the old normal, or about 20 per cent of the new permitted levels. With the 
cut in rations, however, the index began a steady decline.[3] On May 4, Brig. Gen. 
William H. Draper, AMG director of economics, reported that output in our zone 
was "far below that necessary to maintain the minimum standard of living." The 
report went on to give production figures for individual industries as percentages 
of capacity. Here are a few samples: chemicals 25 per cent; electric power 20 per 
cent; building materials 20 per cent; steel products 13 per cent; ceramics 5 per 
cent; farm machinery 22 per cent; electrical equipment 15 per cent; automotive 
and industrial machinery 10 per cent. [4] The following summer it was reported 
that less than 30 per cent of available industry in our zone was in operation. [5] 

Deputy Military Governor Clay at the end of August declared that it will take at 
least four more years for Germany to recover sufficiently to bring production up 
to the bare subsistence levels set under the deindustrialization program. [6] 

War destruction plus the Allied program of repression have created thorough 
disorganization. Of the plants not bombed out completely, many were obsolete, 
others located in areas where residential destruction was so complete that there 
was no room for workers, or where available transportation and communications 
could serve only a fraction of production. [7] Freight carrying has been slow and 
unreliable, able to meet only 70 per cent of the low demand. Passenger service is 
covering only 30 per cent of German requirements. Cars are jammed and 
passengers even hang on the sides and tops. Railroad shortages lie in rolling 
stock, ships, manpower, coal, and result in part from bottlenecks and the 
inevitable inefficiency of military control. [8] 

Low coal production has been a key problem resulting in part from lack of civilian 
goods available to miners and their families. The AMG official in charge said in 
July, 1946, that the miners must be fed better and treated better in other ways to 
get improved output. "We are going to have to provide decent housing and we are 
going to have to make consumer goods available, as an incentive for the miners to 
dig. At present they cannot even buy needle and thread with which to patch their 
pants . . . There is no slowdown conspiracy nor underground political sabotage by 
the workers, it is just that they have not enough incentive to work."[9] 

A high ranking British officer a few days earlier had admitted that anti-British 
sentiment is growing in the Ruhr. He said: "The Germans are just beginning to 
appreciate the economic hardships imposed upon them by allied policy. It is 



natural there should be a stiffening of the German attitude toward this policy, 
and that the British should receive the brunt of this stiffening since the 
reparation program takes more from the British zone than from other parts of 
Germany." He pointed out that the miners lack incentive due to the absence of 
food and other necessities and added: "In a vicious economic cycle we do not 
have consumer goods because manufacturing plants lack the coal to make them. 
Therefore we must have more coal for production. "[lo] 

Bottlenecks and shortages permeate the whole German economy as the inevitable 
consequence of war destruction and the production prohibitions enforced under 
the level of industry plan. In July, 1946, for example, it was reported that the 
metal shortage had halted the production of plows, while the supply of 
horseshoes and nails was about exhausted. The number of motor trucks in Berlin, 
with its 3,000,000 inhabitants and area five times that of Chicago, was down to 
8,000. Solder was not available even for mending pots and pans. Shoe cobblers 
were using old portfolios, dice boxes, helmet liners, any piece of salvage leather 
they could find to repair shoes. Although 50,000 school children were out of 
shoes, the supply of shoe nails was about exhausted. Because of lack of 
permanganate of potash, caused by dismantlement of I.G. Farben plants, the 
manufacture of saccharine, vitally needed on account of the sugar famine as well 
as by diabetics, was threatened. Manufacture of adhesive tape, muslin, bandages, 
and surgical dressings was halted in Thuringia because cotton mills appropriated 
by the Russians would not furnish raw materials. Cement production, sorely 
needed for reconstruction, was low because of dismantlements and shortage of 
machinery and tools. [11] Reports reveal that such industries as rug, fabric, 
cutlery, toy, and musical instrument factories, fortunate to have survived the war, 
lack fuel and raw materials. [12] 

Current German production has been far less than enough to supply current 
minimum needs of the populace. For the first year, it was possible to draw on 
reserve supplies left over from pre-surrender days and spared in the looting and 
destruction even of vast leftover food stores by the armies of the victors. [13] But 
these reserves were gradually exhausted, leaving a dark prospect for the future. 
Clothes wore out and could not be replaced, due to the virtual nonexistence of 
textiles for civilian use. In consequence, as one report put it: 

"The best dressed frauleins in Berlin this spring will wear a combination of 
window curtains and old bedclothes. "[14] 

Desperation for money to buy food on the black markets to supplement the 
starvation rations, has led the Germans to sell their assets, disposing first of what 
they need the least. Their rings have gone, then watches, bracelets, that other pair 
of shoes, dresses, jackets, suits. As one Berlin reporter put it: 

"Last winter there was no coal, and Berliners burned everj' tree in town and for 
several miles around. Cold is the most miserable of all living conditions, and as 
people get closer and closer to the primitive, it's natural that they look to the 
future. At first I was amazed to see girls walking down Berlin streets in summer 



clad in long coats of fox, or squirrel, or sheep. Then I realized. Remembering last 
winter; looking toward another winter without fuel - they've sold the clothing 
least needed. And I'm not kidding when I say a lot of these frauleins are down to 
their last fur coat."[l5] 

Associated Press bulletin from Hereford, Germany, dated September 9, 1946 
reads: 

"The British officially informed Germans in their zone today they could expect no 
coal for heating this winter."[l6] 

A little later an arrangement was made for miners to work Sundays, so that the 
average family of four in the merged American and British zone could have fuel 
this winter equivalent in heating value of a little over half a ton of hard coal for a 
six months period. [17] A month later the unions voted not to work on Sundays. 

In the face of this grim prospect, the best that could be hoped for in the way of 
food by the population living on the very edge of starvation, suffering from 
famine edema, swelling of joints, and all the other terrors of gradual starvation, 
as stated before, was an increase in rations to the "grim and dangerous" 1,500 
calorie level throughout the 1946-47 winter. In June, 1946, Col. H.B. Hester, in 
charge of the American military government food branch, predicted a disastrous 
famine in Germany the next winter unless the ration level was raised by 
October.[i8] His report followed another by Col. W.L. Wilson, chief of public 
health and welfare, that the condition of the conquered people was sinking 
rapidly under the present ration. [19] 

In the French zone 5,000 have died weekly of starvation. [20] In mid-summer of 
1946, in Berlin, 19,000 very serious tuberculosis cases for whom no beds were 
available were reported officially by American authorities. The Senate of 
Hamburg issued an appeal to England and the entire world to send food and 
medicines to "avert terrible epidemics and mass deaths." Hamburg motormen 
and conductors were imperiling safety of public transport by "fainting from 
hunger" and dropping at their posts from long undernourishment and weakness 
while on duty. The Medical Council of Cologne informed the British military 
authorities that the population there "is facing catastrophe" unless food was 
quickly provided, adding that "resistance to infectious diseases, especially 
tuberculosis, is vanishing." Authorities in the Rhineland sent an appeal from 
Dusseldorf to the British military government to "close the murderous food gap," 
in order to check rapidly spreading disease and epidemics caused by hunger." A 
medical authority said: 

"Many thousands of men, women, and children, who, with what reserves in 
strength and \itality they still possessed, managed to live through the rigors, cold 
and hunger of last winter, will not sur\dve this winter, after another year's 
depletion in their power of resistance to diseases fostered by starvation and semi- 
starvation. Death's harvest indeed maybe appalling. "[2 1] 



With this frightful prospect it will behoove relief organizations to operate at 
maximum capacity if millions of lives are to be saved. 



Economic DisTnembermeTit 

Big Four officials have laid all the blame for Germany's distress on the war and 
zonal separation. In their view Potsdam would afford the best possible solution to 
all difficulties if only zonal division could be corrected. 

German territory west of the Oder-Neisse line was divided into four zones to be 
occupied and administered by the military forces of Russia, Great Britain, the 
United States, and France. 

Russia's zone, comprising the eastern half of Prussia west of the Oder-Neisse 
river line is the best balanced of the four zones. In addition to containing some 45 
per cent of Germany's manufacturing during the war, it produced more than 
enough food for its own consumption and mines brown coal and other minerals. 
Other sections of the Reich had been heavily dependent upon it for many key raw 
materials and manufactures. Stripped as it has been, it nevertheless supplies 
Russia with a sizable flow of goods taken as reparation. 

Britain's zone comprises the western half of Prussia. Within it is the Ruhr District 
which contains the continent's most valuable natural resources, especially large 
deposits of high grade coal close to Europe's best iron ores, and lies in the midst 
of Europe's densest concentration of population in a region served by excellent 
rail and water transportation. Molotov rightly called it "Europe's workshop." 
Despite intensive cultivation the zone suffers a heavy food deficit, and even coal 
production has been at a low ebb since V-E Day. Administration costs are 320 
million dollars a year above revenues. 

The American zone lies in the central and southern sections of the Reich. Most of 
it is mountainous and largely scenic. It is not and cannot become self-sufficient in 
food production and is highly dependent upon various imports. It perfectly 
illustrates the essential interdependence of all sections of German economy. All 
of its hard coal requirements must be imported from the Ruhr or Saar regions, 
and 83 per cent of the steel required by its many manufacturing establishments 
must come from the outside. Lack of coal has forced partial or total closing of 
many industries; for example, the pharmaceutical industry, which needs coal tar; 
the tire business, which needs buna made from coal; and various fabricating, 
processing and finishing establishments. Because of the steel shortage, the largest 
tin can manufacturer in Bavaria closed so that some 10 million tins badly needed 
to put up the 1946 crop of peas, beans, and fruit, were not made. Large numbers 
are unemployed and administration is costing the American taxpayers 200 
million dollars a year. 



France 's zone consists mostly of provincial fragments of former Germany 
bordering on France and contains no complete political or economic entities. Its 
chief asset is the Saar Basin, rich in coal and steel. Although intensively 
cultivated, the zone is not self-sufficient in food, because of heavy specialization 
in vineyards and orchards. It must import its potatoes from Bavaria, for example, 
and other zones rely upon its food specialties. 

One of the outstanding facts about Germany is the dependence of each section, 
and now each zone, upon all the others - for food, steel, coal, timber, and other 
essentials. The peace settlements did not anticipate economic separation of 
Germany's highly interdependent regions. Since the zones were set up strictly for 
administrative purposes and were not supposed to exert any divisive influence 
upon Germany economy, zonal boundary lines were laid out promiscuously 
across political and economic subdivisions. The belief that the zones would 
remain one thing and German economy another is clearly shown in the early 
statements and declarations of policy. 

Potsdam directs that "during the period of occupation Germany shall be treated 
as an economic unit," and an earlier Big Four statement on control machinery for 
Germany decrees that: 

"The Control Council, whose decisions shall be unanimous, will ensure 
appropriate uniformity of action by the Commanders in Chief in their respective 
zones of occupation and will reach agreed decisions on the chief questions 
affecting Germany as a whole." 

This demand for results made impossible by the conditions laid down 
simultaneously has been about as effective as commanding the sun to stand still. 

Insisted upon by Russia the requirement that Control Council decisions "shall be 
unanimous" has in practice barred "agreed decisions on the chief questions 
affecting Germany as a whole," and has brought anything but uniformity of zonal 
action. It has killed Control Council effectiveness just as the veto power also 
insisted upon by Russia has destroyed the effectiveness of the Security Council of 
the United Nations Organization. 

France has been particularly obstructive in Control Council voting. Although 
British and American delegations insisted upon inclusion of France in the Four 
Power control and occupation of the Reich, France has never signed the Potsdam 
agreements. In consequence she is not bound by the agreements, yet is able to 
veto their execution. [22] She has frankly admitted her opposition to German 
unification and, for her own presumed self-protection and territorial 
aggrandizement, has demanded that Germany be Balkanized and destroyed as a 
power factor of Europe. To achieve this end she had obdurately insisted, as 
mentioned before, that the whole of western Germany be broken off and either 
internationalized or added to France. Upon taking her place among the Big Four, 
she served notice that until these demands were met, she would veto all Control 
Council decisions aiming to treat the Reich as an economic unit and thereafter 



lived up to her promise - even to such a fine point as rejecting a national postage 
stamp. 

France has been by no means alone in blocking unified economic administration. 
Russia has been almost as obstructive and would probably have been more so had 
France not been so obliging. Even Britain and the United States have not 
hesitated to balk whenever it appeared selfishly advantageous for them to do so. 

In the absence of "agreed decisions" calling for uniform action in all zones, the 
Reich has become divided into four economically deficient and unbalanced "air 
tight" compartments, each administered exclusively by its occupying power as 
though it were a colony or protectorate. More difficult to surmount than those of 
independent states, zonal boundaries form such barriers to interzonal intercourse 
that what little trade occurs must be barter deals arranged by special treaty. [23] 

Although such economic dismemberment would alone guarantee economic 
disorganitation, it cannot rightly be made to serve as a scape-goat for all the sins 
of Potsdam, nor for the British and American zonal deficits. Even in the absence 
of zonal separation the other harsh and repressive measures ordered at Potsdam 
would assure German economic paralysis. 

Disregarding this manifest fact, many officials find it convenient to lay all the 
blame on the zonal barriers and to argue that if they could be eliminated Potsdam 
would be transformed from a dismal failure into a dazzling success. The thesis 
may enable them to avoid admitting the colossal blunder Potsdam really is, but it 
also serves as a bar to taking the steps necessary to meet the trouble 
fundamentally. 

Put forward as a general panacea for all German administrative ills, economic 
anschluss of as many zones as possible has become the chief objective of our 
zonal authorities. In the attempt to break down French and Russian objections, 
they offered to divide the Reich into a number of federated states and to 
guarantee German disarmament for 25 or even 40 years. After this proposal was 
rejected on the ground that it was wholly inadequate and would lead to war, they 
offered to merge the American zone economically "with one, two, or three other 
zones. "[24] In making the offer, AMG Commander in Chief, General McNarney, 
observed: 

"The United States Government proposes this arrangement because of its behef 
that Germany can no longer be administered in four air tight compartsments 
without free economic intercourse, unless paralysis is to result. The United States 
Government is unwilling to permit creeping economic paralysis to grow if it is 
possible to attain economic unity between its zone and any other zone in 
Germany, as a prelude to economic unity for all Germany."[25] 

Although Russia and France turned down the offer, Britain accepted and the task 
of effecting economic unification of the British and American zones was 
undertaken. 



Even if such an economic merger can be made effective in the absence of pohtical 
unification, which is doubtful, it is but one short step in a long way that must be 
traveled before substantial permanent amelioration of Germany's plight can be 
attained. On the other hand, the merger partitions the Reich between East and 
West and intensifies and embitters the conflict between the two. 



Reference Notes: 

[i] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 5, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[2] Edd Johnson, Berlin, April 30, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[3] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 2, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[4] Hal Foust, Berlin, May 4, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] John Fisher, Washington, Aug. 22, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service, quoting Prof. Jas. K. 

Pollock. 

[6] Associated Press, Berlin, Aug. 31, 1946. 

[7] Same as No. 6. 

[8] Hal Foust, Berlin, April 27, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[9] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 23, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service, quoting Max H. Forester, 

Chief of Coal and Mining Div. of AMG. 

[10] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 17, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[11] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 29, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[12] Hal Foust, Berlin, Feb. 26, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[13] Reuters, Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany, Dec. 16, 1945. 

[14] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Mar. 12, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[15] Jack Bell, Berlin, July 21, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[16] Associated Press, Hereford, Germany, Sept. 9, 1946. 

[17] Hal Foust, Berlin, Sept. 21, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[18] John Elliott, Berlin, June 2, 1946, Special to The Chicago Sun. 

[19] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 3, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[20] James P. Warburg, New York, The Chicago Sun , Aug. 8, 1946. 

[21] Karl H. von Wiegand, Paris, Aug. 3, 1946, Chicago Herald-American. 

[22] Same as No. 20. 

[23] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, May 25, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[24] Associated Press, Berlin, July 21, 1946. 

[25]Hal Foust, Berlin, July 20, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 



Chapter VIII: 
TEACHING DEMOCRACY IN REVERSE 

The Lord High Executioners 

We thought we were coming to Germany as hberators to free the German people 
from dictatorship, to teach them the errors of their ways, and to give them the 
benefits of our form of democracy and free enterprise. Actually we accepted at 
Potsdam a program which negated all of our principles, which could sell our form 
of democracy only in reverse. The Potsdam plan was made to order for Soviet 
Russia, but not for free enterprise or free democratic processes. Its very execution 
requires totalitarianism of the kind the Soviets are accustomed to, of the kind 
which, when the Nazis were practicing it, so outraged us that we fought a half 
trillion dollar war to eradicate it from the earth. 

We first eliminated the German government, the only instrumentality through 
which the German people might take collective self-preservative action and then 
substituted a system of military absolutism, born not of free American 
institutions or ideals, but of the absolutisms dominant at Potsdam. Military 
absolutism was set up under the following edict: 

"In the period when Germany is carrying out the basic requirements of 
unconditional surrender, supreme authority in Germany will be exercised, on 
instruction from their Governments, by the Soviet, British, United States, and 
French Commanders-in-Chief, each in his own zone of occupation, and in 
matters affecting Germany as a whole. The four Commanders-in-Chief will 
together constitute the Control Council." 

Set up to function under the heads of this alien military dictatorship is a 
complicated bureaucracy headed by a hierarchy of descending Caesars, forming a 
neat replica of the authoritarian apparatus employed by both the Soviets and 
Nazis. 

This dictatorship, as we have seen, has as its purpose not the resuscitation and 
rehabilitation of the fallen Reich, but rather its repression and the erection of 
barriers to recovery. With hundreds of thousands of heavily armed occupation 
troops behind it, the alien dictatorship was also prepared to prevent resistance by 
the Germans as they saw the ground prepared for their extermination by their 
being thrown on their own, and forbidden outside assistance while the necessary 
means for their survival were destroyed. It has dropped a soundproof iron curtain 
down around its victims, virtually cutting off intercourse with the outside world, 
ostensibly to prevent contamination of other nations by Nazi ideas, but also to 
prevent the anguished cries of the German women and children from reaching 
and disturbing others while the gruesome program was carried into effect. 

As the death noose tightened about them, the Germans were to be made to 
believe they are entirely to blame for their dilemma. Even the inevitable 



economic collapse must be laid at the door of German administrators. They must 
be made to spring their own trap door. Potsdam says: 

"In the imposition and maintenance of economic controls . . ., German 
administrative machinery' shall be created and the German authorities shall be 
required to the fullest extent practicable to proclaim and assume administration 
of such controls. Thus it should be brought home to the German people that the 
responsibility for the administration of such controls and any breakdown in 
these controls will rest with themselves." (emphasis added) 

This was the craven way we were to bring self government to the Germans. 

We no doubt hoped, for example, that by turning denazification over to so-called 
"German" prosecutors and courts set up and operating under our mandate we 
could make the Germans blame themselves for the deleterious effects. 

We have said it is democratic to make the Germans conduct their own purge, 
which is tantamount to accepting the Russian purges as democratic. But those 
purges were at least Russian affairs. The German purge machinery is operated by 
Communists and radical Marxist Socialists placed in office by an alien 
dictatorship and no more representative of the Germans than Quisling's Nazi 
government was of the Norwegians. The Germans know full well that whatever 
our puppets do reflects our will and dicta. If we should by any chance convince 
them that this is what we mean by the democracy we came to force upon them, 
we could hardly blame them if they rejected it at the first opportunity. 

Our military government is anything but democratic, except in the Russian sense. 
It is headed by well-trained military men, competent to carry out military tasks 
and orders received from Washington prepared by politicians and behind-the- 
scenes operators. Instead of a democratic body representative of free Americans, 
they are order takers, willing to carry out without question whatever directive 
they receive from above. They are identical in this respect with Hitler's loyal 
hierarchy of lord high executioners. 

Our troops of occupation have been splendid young American boys, but for the 
most part raw, inexperienced, teenage draftees who could be expected neither to 
relish their job nor to comprehend its exacting nature. The whole experience has 
tended to corrupt and brutalize them. As mentioned before, our use of a 
disproportionate number of negro troops has helped alienate the Germans and 
disgust our own personnel. 

In conjunction with the military forces we have sent over a corps of high salaried 
civilian employees, consisting in large measure of people who had failed the 
social and economic competition at home, including in some cases broken down, 
discharged officers who could not stand the rough going of actual combat in 
France and Italy, or the chagrin of having to return home as failures before the 
war was over, but who now draw higher pay than ever in their lives during 
peacetime before, and who enjoy swelling arrogantly with self-assumed 



importance before defeated but often more refined, cultured, and substantial 
people caught under their delegated authority. 

This motley crew for the most part has no intimate knowledge of European and 
especially German conditions, mores, problems, or history, but was hastily 
recruited and superficially trained for its extremely demanding mission. 

Although circumstances do not permit our body of civilian employees as a whole 
to be representative of the best there is in America, there are, fortunately, some 
notable exceptions. Often at great personal sacrifice, some very able, well- 
informed, conscientious experts and specialists have gone over and by their 
influence and efforts helped to mitigate the difficult situation. To these splendid 
products of our free institutions must go the lion's share of credit for whatever 
success AMG has achieved. For army men, if they are competent as such, cannot 
be expected to manage and perform major operations on a crippled foreign 
economy and social system without creating chaos. If the Army has proved 
unequal to the task of running such relatively simple things as railroads and mail 
order houses in America, it surely must be unequal to the stupendous job given it 
in Germany. 

Potsdam has imposed upon us a program which runs counter to our fundamental 
convictions and philosophy. The military men who head AMG generally believe 
that the less government interferes with business the better it is for everybody, 
except in Germany. And they oppose collectivism philosophically, except in 
Germany. Although they fought a war to destroy dictatorship, they are willing to 
serve as one themselves and to impose almost complete control over the lives of 
individual Germans. Nothing runs without their permission. 

Zonal rule over the economic, political, and cultural life of the German people, as 
commanded at Potsdam, could be handled with a modicum of success only by 
men with long experience in totalitarian philosophy and methodology. And in 
this respect the Russian zonal authorities enjoy a great advantage. Whereas the 
rule which Potsdam orders is alien to our background, training, and philosophy, 
it conforms perfectly to Russian practice at home. Such rule cannot bring free 
enterprise to Germany; only some form of collectivist society could grow up 
under it. 

These are points of cardinal importance in the rivalry between Soviet Russia and 
the western powers over ultimate control of the German Reich. 



"Reeducation" 

Many ardent supporters of Potsdam have become greatly upset about Communist 
plans for taking over the Reich. They have no right to be, because the very first 
signature affixed to the document is that of Joseph Stalin. The Russians, 
therefore, have just as much right as we to lay down the meaning of its loose 



provisions and undefined terms. When Potsdam calls for democratization of the 
Reich without specifying exactly what is meant by "democracy," the Soviets have 
a perfect right to insist that the order calls for German communization. And this 
is but one of the pernicious features of its "re-education" program. 

Potsdam, in connection with denazification, decrees that ousted Nazis "shall be 
replaced by persons who by their political and moral qualities, are deemed 
capable of assisting in developing genuine democratic institutions in Germany." 
But no hint is given as to what "genuine democratic institutions" might be. It 
prohibits propagation of national socialist ideas, without stating what they are, 
and then provides that "German education shall be so controlled as completely to 
eliminate Nazi and militarist doctrines and to make possible the successful 
development of democratic ideas," again without definition. 

But forbidding propagation and discussion of one political philosophy and 
forcing the public to accept a different one held by those in the seats of power is 
Nazi doctrine. It is also Communist doctrine. And the Communists claim theirs is 
the one and only genuine democracy. 

Political democracy, say the Bolsheviks, is impossible over the long run without 
"economic democracy," by which they mean abolition of private ownership of 
property, the foundation of free enterprise. But they call free enterprise fascism, 
and defenders of the American system fascists. And Nazism is a form of fascism. 
Denazification, in Russian eyes, therefore, is tantamount to rooting out our own 
system, along with all other private property systems. 

The Bolsheviks call any country or party fascist or Nazi if it takes or advocates 
measures to curb the activities of Communist parties; those which permit the 
Communists to go freely about their business of destroying them and building a 
world soviet union are denominated "democratic." Thus, Potsdam qualifies as a 
"democratic" document. 

These facts were known, or should have been known, by all the principals at 
Potsdam. When Russia was permitted to sign the agreements without a clear 
definition of what was meant by "democracy," we were falling into a dangerous 
trap from which we cannot escape, unless we simply repudiate the agreements we 
signed. The whole thing makes us look very stupid. 

If by democracy we meant our way of life - free enterprise, private property, 
individual liberties, the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and 
government of, by, and for the people - it should have been obvious to us from 
the beginning that the program to establish democracy by force was foredoomed 
to failure. We might logically have hoped to wipe out Hitlerism by Hitlerite 
methods, but we certainly could never hope to establish our way of life that way. 

Our intolerance of Nazi political opinion, however justified it may seem, is 
nevertheless the opposite of democratic in the American sense. Our 



determination to wipe out ideas by force is a repudiation of democracy's most 
sacred tenets. People who really believe in freedom of thought and opinion do not 
use clubs on the debating platform. We despised Hitler for burning books 
proscribed by the Nazis, not because we were necessarily partial toward the 
particular books involved, but as a matter of principle. Yet we have ourselves 
violated the principle, and adopted Hitlers, by burning the Nazi books. In words 
we denounce Hitlerism; in deeds we exonerate it! 

The impression has been given by prolonged propaganda that national socialist 
tenets were obviously evil and criminal, that they openly called for aggressive 
war, for example, and conquest of the world. This is not true. Like the platform of 
any political party seeking support at the polls, its planks appeared to be quite 
innocuous. In fact, Nazism and its works were praised by many foreign notables 
such as Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. When polled, 51 per cent of our 
own GI's, stationed in Germany, said they believed Hitler "did the Reich a lot of 
good before 1939," and 19 per cent of those questioned believed "the Germans 
had some or a good deal of justification for starting the war." - "It showed large 
percentages of the soldiers ready to accept German explanations and willing to 
absolve the mass of Germans from responsibility for concentration camp 
atrocities." - "29 per cent conceded they had grown 'more favorable' toward their 
former enemies since they had been in the country."[i] 

It was perfectly possible for honest, intelligent, conscientious German citizens to 
be party members and even enthusiasts. For us to assume differently is merely to 
exhibit our ignorance and gullibility for propaganda. Nazism was wrong in many 
fundamental respects, and these features should be exposed. The Germans 
should be shown in principle where these ideas were wrong and dangerous. They 
should be stated as general principles to be opposed no matter who advances 
them, even if they are communists. And the operation should be discussion by 
free, uncensored debate. Certainly, nothing can be gained by treating the subjects 
as undiscussable. 

The Nazis were wrong in their invasion of the schools and forcing elimination of 
certain ideas and texts and acceptance of certain others. They were wrong in 
principle. So are we, when we impose our ideas and textbooks on the Germans. 
We are even more so for being outsiders, whereas the Nazis were at least German. 
The Nazis were wrong in their strict censorship of the German press. And so are 
we. We cannot create a free press in Germany through rigid censorship and we 
look very foolish when we try it. 

Persecution of people on account of their blood is deplorable - whether practiced 
by the Germans or against them. Persecution arises from hate and is stirred by 
hatemongers. Walter Winchell has said we must hate the Germans. "Let future 
German generations see them [German monuments] and find out what kind of 
blood they were born with," he wrote a year after Germany surrendered. "If they 
can grow up among reminders of what it costs to be a monster, maybe they'll 
work a little harder to get back into the human race."[2] Likewise, while Secretary 



of State Byrnes was appealing to the Germans at Stuttgart, the information and 
education department of the U.S. Army in the European theatre was still calling 
for hatred toward the German people. In a pamphlet it said: "The feeling of pity 
for the Germans is very similar to the psychological reaction we get toward a 
pretty girl who murdered her father in cold blood, owing to the reluctance to 
condemn one who looks so nice and kind, as a murderess." The Germans in their 
hate mongering were no more unheedful of the Christian, "Love thine enemy." 

The German leaders applied the hideous and indefensible doctrine of collective 
guilt against a whole people whom they looked upon as deadly enemies. This was 
one of their greatest crimes. We have committed the same crime by applying the 
same doctrine against all the people of Germany, including unborn babies. 
Perhaps the reason we forbid discussion of Nazism, fail to list its features, and try 
to destroy it by force, goes back to our having unconsciously accepted most of its 
worst features since 1932, without knowing their identity. [3] 

And so we go blithely on our way trying to stamp out Nazism while practicing it 
ourselves. The very stamping is Nazi like. 

We came as liberators to teach the Germans how to enjoy self-government and 
political freedom. Yet we have imposed our denazification decrees which so 
frighten them that they refuse to take part in politics for fear of the possible 
consequences under our "democratic" control. We are trying to teach them 
democracy, and yet we have so circumscribed what they may teach that their 
teachers, unless they are Communists, are afraid to say anything. Politically, 
German leaders are not permitted to speak freely, and even those in our military 
government are afraid to say what they think, for fear of the consequences. 
Because of our undemocratic policies regarding freedom of the press, which we 
preach while violating in practice, the German press is operating in a vacuum. 
Intellectual hunger in Germany is almost as acute as physical hunger. 

On top of everything else, our system of justice has become brutalized and highly 
discriminatory. We have three separate bodies of laws, one for our forces, one for 
displaced persons, and one for the German population, and in none is there a 
serious effort to make the punishment fit the crime. For example, a frail, 
widowed, German mother of two small children was sent to jail for five months 
for having in her possession a parachute knife given her as a trophy and 
remembranceby her husband just before he was shot down over Britain. [4] This 
is typical, not exceptional. It makes the Germans shudder at "democratic justice." 
While we preach law and order, we coddle and grant special privileges to 
"displaced persons," who according to AMG officers, have been responsible for 50 
per cent of the crimes in the American zone. [5] 

While preaching democracy we have installed ourselves as an alien plutocracy, 
many of whose members have found blackmarket operations and other shady 
deals not beneath them. While the Germans around them starve, wear rags, and 
live in hovels, the American aristocrats live in often unaccustomed ease and 



luxury. Their wives must be specially marked to protect them from licentious 
advances; they live in the finest homes from which they drove the Germans; they 
swagger about in fine liveries and gorge themselves on diets three times as great 
as they allow the Germans, and allow "displaced persons" diets twice as great. 
When we tell the Germans their low rations are necessary because food is so 
short, they naturally either think we are lying to them or regard us as inhuman 
for taking the lion's share of the short supplies while they and their children 
starve. 

We have in many ways shown ourselves quite callous to the sufferings of the 
conquered. The war left in its wake countless numbers of war victims with 
disabled bodies, some without arms, legs, eyes, or otherwise disfigured. They and 
the millions killed in battle or held as war prisoners have millions of dependents, 
aged parents, wives and children. In addition there are the hordes of 
impoverished, suffering expellees from the east. But the towering needs of all 
these millions of helpless Germans have been a minor consideration to the 
feeding and housing of displaced persons. Only a little news comes from their 
loved ones held as war prisoners in England, France, and other western 
countries, none from Russia. Nor has the Allied Control Council yet issued a full 
and detailed list of either war casualties or war prisoners. Thousands are still held 
in unnecessary, agonizing suspense wondering whether fathers and brothers who 
were in the war are still alive or dead. As one German mother said, "Even a little 
sympathy would help. I haven't heard from my son for more than a year now. If I 
knew he were dead, I could get over it." 

This is the way to teach democracy in reverse. If the Germans are ever to become 
adherents, they must do so voluntarily, through conviction, not compulsion. By 
our behavior we are making it impossible for them to gain the conviction. In the 
light of what they are having to endure under our control and because of our 
policies and weaknesses, they will not easily conclude, as we wish them to, that 
Hitlerism is uniquely brutal, oppressive, or dishonest. 

One of the main difficulties is the fact that our democracy is confronted by a 
paradox which almost defies solution. Far from facing or solving it, we have failed 
to notice it. And those whom we wish to win to democratic principles see our 
blindness and lose their respect for their would-be teachers. We must sooner or 
later make up our minds whether democracy can tolerate the spread of 
democracy-destroying doctrines, and if not, how it can stop them and still remain 
democracy. 

If what we are doing in Germany against Nazism is right, then what we are doing 
here at home about Communism is wrong. If we must stamp out Nazism there, 
we must stamp out Communism here; if in the name of democracy and freedom 
of opinion we can tolerate dissemination of Communist doctrine and treasonable 
Communist fifth column activities here, we should treat Nazism with equal 
kindness over there. For the one is just as bad as the other. 



Reference Notes: 

[i] Associated Press, Wiesbaden, Germany, Jan. 24, 1946, The Chicago Sun and Chicago Daily 

Tribune, Jan. 25, 1946. 

[2] Walter Winchell [daily column], San Francisco, May 4, 1946. 

[3] Prof. Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1944), p. 184. 

[4] Larry Rue, Munich, Germany, July 10, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] Larry Rue, Munich, Germany, July 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 



Chapter IX: 
THE KREMLIN'S PROGRAM 

Imperialist Expansion and World Revolution 

To comprehend Russia's bid for control over the German Reich, it is necessary 
first to have an understanding of the Soviet Union's more general aims and ideas. 
Lack of such knowledge is primarily responsible for the botch our leaders have 
made of our relations with Moscow. 

Surging, aggressive Soviet Russia represents a merger of the territorial ambitions 
of old Russian imperialism and the communist program of world revolution. The 
former proceeds as before on military power and the allurements of Pan-Slavism, 
to which has now been added the force of world communism. The latter, 
motivated as always by the crusading urge of ideological fanaticism, finds itself 
carried along by the expansionist imperialism of its base, Soviet Russia. 
Reinforcing each other as they do, the two confront the world with menacing 
power. 

Russian imperial expansion now as in former years threatens British trade 
routes, strategic oil reserves, and commercial opportunities. Russian attempts to 
penetrate through Iran to the Persian Gulf and through the Dardanelles and 
Trieste to the Mediterranean are to Britain intolerable threats to her lifeline to 
India. Equally damaging is the actual and potential enlargement of the Soviet 
Union itself, for wherever it expands it virtually closes the door to international 
trade and financial operations on which Britain thrives and without which she 
starves. Through the force of world communism the U.S.S.R., which has already 
drawn into its orbit the eastern half of Europe and important sections of Asia, 
actively menaces other sectors all over the globe - in Asia, Africa, western Europe, 
and even the Americas. 

And because we believe our own vital interests parallel those of Britain, our 
reaction to Russian expansion is similar to the British and collaborates closely 
with it. 

World Communism, based on the teachings of Marx, Lenin, and now Stalin, 
paints capitalism as a diabolical exploitative system in which the propertied 
classes rob the workers through the wage system. In harmony with Marx's 
dialectical materialism and economic teachings. Communists and many Socialists 
believe that capitalism is dying by predestined, convulsive stages involving 
commercial crises, wars, and catastrophes, that the end of the capitalist world is 
at hand, to be superseded by a new world order of socialism. 

Communists deem it their mission to hasten by all available means the process of 
capitalist disintegration and the advent of the socialist millennium. Following the 
philosophy that might makes right, that the end justifies the means, their every 
act, even when disguised as "reform," is calculated to hasten the revolutionary 



downfall of the private property and wage systems. [i] Communists aim to lead 
the revolution and to command the new socialist world order by having charge of 
the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by which it is to be ruled. [2] 

The chief instrument to carry out this mission is the Communist Party with 
branches in all countries and its headquarters now in Moscow. But it is not a 
political party in the ordinary sense. It is not intended to be a voting aggregation, 
to gain power by legal means, but rather a thoroughly trained, highly disciplined 
Military Staff and vanguard of the revolutionary masses to seize power by 
violence and to hold it by terror, "unlimited power, resting on violence and not on 
law." In the words of Lenin, as quoted by Stalin: 

"The successful victory over capitalism requires a correct relationship between 
the leading Communist Party and the revolutionary class, the proletariat, on the 
one hand, and the masses, i.e., all those who toil and are exploited, on the other. 
Only the Communist Party, if it really is the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if 
it incorporates all the best representatives of the class, if it is composed of fully 
conscious and devoted Communists who have been educated and steeled by the 
experience of stubborn revolutionary struggle, if this party has succeeded in 
linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and through this class 
with the whole mass of the exploited, and in imbuing this class and these masses 
with complete confidence - only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat 
in the most ruthless, decisive, and final struggle against all the forces of 

capitalism. "[3] 

The proselytizing power of the Party arises primarily from mass discontent with 
the existing order to which Communists attribute all the annoyances and troubles 
of life. The Party takes full advantage of the many admitted defects of the present 
system, a large part of which are rooted in human nature itself and would be 
present under any arrangement. It thrives on such things as the failure of 
classical political economy to explain or mitigate business crises; the 
inadequacies and the distortions of orthodox history; the failure of church and 
other leaders to recognize and face the great issues of our times; the universal 
tendency to envy those who are better off and to blame "the system" for personal 
failure and maladjustment; the secret desire to witness, perhaps aid, the downfall 
of those in superior positions gained, it is supposed, by foul play or personal 
connections, rather than merit. Finally, there is the idealistic attraction of the 
slogan "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." The 
prospect offered seems like perfect brotherhood and altruistic interest in the 
welfare of one's fellow men, which contrasts sharply with the cold, self-regarding 
character of private enterprise. But those who permit themselves to follow this 
lure fail to realize what Russia has learned, though she does not preach it, 
namely, that in practice removal of incentive for superior performance provided 
by personal reward in accordance with deed causes interest and performance to 
fall, and compulsion, by enslavement or worse, to follow. 

The first country to fall to world communism was Russia, which since the 
Bolshevist Revolution of October, 1917, has provided a powerful national base for 
international communist operations. A strong effort is now made to create the 



impression that the Communist International has been dissolved, that there is no 
longer any connection between Russia and communist parties in other countries. 
Stalin when recently asked, "What is your opinion regarding the accusation that 
the policies of communist parties in western Europe are 'dictated by Moscow'?" 
replied, "I consider the accusation absurd and to be borrowed trom the bankrupt 
arsenal of Hitler and Goebbels."[4] 

Yet in his own book, PROBLEMS OF LENINISM, currently revised by him, 
translated under his authorization into all civilized languages, distributed by 
communist parties everywhere, and accepted by them as unquestionable gospel, 
Stalin cries: "For what else is our country, the country that is building socialism, 
if not the base of the world revolution?"[5] Quoting Lenin, he says: 

"The victor^' of socialism is possible, first in a few or even in one single capitalist 
country' taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, ha\dng 
expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would rise 
against the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of 
other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and even in the 
event of necessity come out even with armed forces against the exploiting classes 
and their states. [6] 

"It is inconceivable that the So\det republic should continue to exist for a long 
period side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately one or the other must 
conquer. Meanwhile a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet republic and 
the bourgeois states in inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling 
class, wants to and will rule, it must prove it also by military organization. "[7] 

Stalin says that all but traitors to the cause of communism must accept these 
views, that to deny them "is to abandon internationalism, to abandon 
Leninism. "[8] In his equally widely translated and distributed FOUNDATIONS 
OF LENINISM, Stalin says: 

"But overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and establishing the power of the 
proletariat in a single countrj' does not yet guarantee the complete victory of 
socialism. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry after it, the 
proletariat of the victorious country can and must build up socialist society. But 
does that mean that in this way the proletariat will secure a complete and final 
victor^' for socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of a single country it 
can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against 
intervention, which means against restoration? Certainly not. That requires 
victory for the revolution in at least several countries. It is therefore the essential 
task of the victorious revolution in one country to develop and support the 
revolution in others. So the revolution in a victorious country ought not consider 
itself as a self-contained unit, but as an auxiliary and a means of hastening the 
victory of the proletariat in other countries. 

"Lenin has tersely expressed this thought by saving that the task of the victorious 
revolution is to do the "utmost possible in one country for the development, 
support and stirring up of the revolution in all countries. "[^^^ 

In the same work, Stalin emphasizes the necessity of maintaining absolute 
uniformity of policy in all branches of the world communist party through iron 
discipline.[io] He says: 



"But the parties of the Communist International, which organize their activities 
on the basis of the task of achieving and strengthening the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, cannot afford to be "liberal" or to permit the formation of factions. 
The Party is synonymous with unity of will, which leaves no room for 
factionalism or division of authority in the Party."[ll] 

This is the reason for the well-known close conformity of the American 
Communist Party to Moscow policy. And neither these realities nor the 
quotations just given can be obliterated for Mr. Stalin's present convenience as 
absurdities "borrowed from the bankrupt arsenal of Hitler and Goebbels." Lying 
and deception are among communism's most useful weapons. Stalin explains the 
necessity of deceiving one's bourgeois enemies, even when serving as allies, of 
waging relentless war against all bourgeois states, i.e., states operating under the 
private property system, which includes the United States of America. Quoting 
Lenin, he says: 

"To carr>' on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, which is a 
hundred times more difficult, prolonged and complicated than the most stubborn 
of ordinary wars between states; and to refuse beforehand to maneuver, to utilize 
the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies; to refuse 
to temporise and compromise with possible (even though transient, unstable, 
vacillating and conditional) allies - is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not 
as though, in the difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible 
mountain, we were to renounce beforehand the idea that at all times we might 
have to go in zigzags, sometimes retracing our steps, sometimes giving up the 
course once selected and trying various others?"[l2] 

Russia's wartime pretense that she had abandoned the revolution both at home 
and abroad was done merely to deceive her unstable allies of the moment, was 
merely a necessary zigzag or strategic retreat in the continuing effort to reach the 
ultimate goal of destruction of private enterprise throughout the world. In a 
speech to the Russian people, February 9, 1946, Stalin made clear that the 
Kremlin looks upon the Soviet Union as its own united nations organization 
which it wishes to spread all over the world ostensibly to end wars and other 
difficulties among nations. He said: 

"The Soviet state system has proved an example of a multinational state system 
where the national problem and the problem of collaboration among nations are 
solved better than in any other multinational state. "[l2A] 

While assuring the Russians that under normal conditions they are better off 
than any other people, the Kremlin constantly paints the outside world in lurid, 
hateful colors. It tells the people that the diabolical capitalists are plotting to 
attack them from within and from without in order to destroy the workers 
paradise which threatens to overthrow the capitalist system of exploitation. Stalin 
in 1939, for example, warned the Communist Party: 

"Never to forget that we are surrounded by a capitalist world; to remember that 
the foreign espionage services will smuggle spies, murderers and wreckers into 
our country; and, remembering this, to strengthen our socialist intelligence 



service and systematically help it to defeat and eradicate the enemies of the 
people."[l3] 

A people thus stirred up to believe they are fighting to save their national life are 
more easily ruled, more willing to obey orders unquestioningly, more willing to 
accept purges of their ranks as necessary cleansings of deadly capitalistic 
influences. Any Russian found conversing with a foreigner is naturally suspected 
of being an agent of free enterprise and is dealt with accordingly. 

Between those who accept and those who reject the teachings of communist 
ideology and the decrees of its leaders there is and can be no compromise, no give 
and take, no margin of tolerance. When they get the upper hand. Communists 
root out and destroy under a reign of terror all capitalistic elements and 
influences. They believe that the workers as they are awakened to the truth about 
their former masters will welcome the new order as a vast improvement over the 
old. Lenin said, as quoted by Stalin: 

"The dictatorship of the proletariat. . . is not merely the use of \iolence against 
the exploiters, and is not even mainly the use of violence. The economic basis of 
this revolutionary violence, the guarantee of its \dtality and success, is that the 
proletariat represents and introduces a higher tj^pe of social organization of labor 
compared with capitalism. That is the essential point. This is the source of the 
strength of Communism and the guarantee of its inevitable complete 
victory."[l4] 



The German Program 

Communists believe that fascism is the final state of capitalism, that when it falls, 
as it must, it can be succeeded only by communism. [15] They believe that our 
attempt to democratize fascist Germany in the western sense is as futile as to try 
to transform a chicken into an egg or a butterfly into a larva. They believe that 
Germany must pass through a natural metamorphosis from nazism to 
communism, and that when they help the process along they are working in 
harmony with the inevitable course of history . 

Walther Ulbricht, Director of the Communist Party in Germany, whose wife was a 
secretary to General Zhukov, and who was in Russia between 1933 and V-E Day, 
stated before a secret Berlin meeting of the "Free German Trade Union's" 45-man 
executive committee for the Soviet zone: 

"when the job of Communizing the Soviet zone is completed we shall devote 
ourselves to the other zones. 

"Soon there will not be any privately owned companies in the Soviet zone in 
Germany. All the large companies, even medium-sized ones will revert to 
community ownership. This must be done rapidly, before the establishment of a 
central administration in Germany can interfere in our zone."[l6] 



Communism is fundamentally an attack against private property and the 
propertied class. In the Russian zone the process of stripping Germans of their 
property has been accomplished by destruction through war action, by looting, 
reparations, inflation, confiscation, and by forced sales. Meanwhile, liquidation of 
the property owning classes has been completed by denazification, forced labor, 
executions, and terror which has led thousands to suicide and other thousands to 
turn fugitive and thus to forfeit their holdings. 

We have already noted the thoroughness with which the zone was sacked and 
looted, yielding billions of dollars worth of lucre to Russia. The other operations 
have been equally devastating. Inflation, which destroys whole classes and eats 
the very marrow out of the bones of any economy, has been deliberately created. 
Russia's share of the occupation marks which had been printed up in advance by 
the U.S. Treasury was not enough. She asked for the plates and after we turned 
them over to her printed up and circulated untold billions more. Finally, she 
opened the vaults of the Reichsbank, its branches, and other banks and seized 
their contents. [17] The resulting inflation has yielded fabulous spoil at little or no 
cost and at the same time helped to ruin and expropriate the propertied class. 

The dispossessed German masses have been reduced to prostrate, helpless, 
submissive proletarians. Having lost all individual security, they are utterly 
dependent upon their new masters for jobs, food, and all other necessities. Since 
nothing is supplied to critics and objectors, survivors are submissive. Farmers, as 
stated before, were stripped of equipment, tools, seeds, and livestock during the 
early looting. To obtain replacements necessary to carry on operations they must 
apply to the "co-operatives" which are under communist control and which use 
their monopoly to prevent "politically unreliable" farmers from obtaining 
essential supplies. Unless they submit, they must abandon farming and give up 
their land. In this fashion the way is opened wide for zonal sovietization with 
minimum interference. [18] 

Soviet authorities believe that the German masses will enthusiastically accept the 
liquidation of the propertied classes as liberation from capitalistic exploitation. 
Carefully censored press and radio assure them that the present painful 
difficulties are only birth pains of a glorious new order which had been blocked 
by the former upper classes. In harmony with this thought, all schools and 
universities that are operating teach the Germans the advantages of communism 
and belittle the western democracies as strongholds of fascism and capitalistic 
exploitation, of wretched imperialism andfomenters of imperialist wars. Such 
ideas are taught the members of the Russian sponsored, nationwide "Free Youth" 
movement, [19] and thousands of children who have been snatched from their 
families and placed in special children's "Homes" for systematic 
indoctrination. [20] Here is a sample of what they are taught: 

"In comparison with the Soviet Repubhc, the parhamentarian democracies are a 
step backward. . . The difference between bourgeois society in the Soviet Union is 
hke the difference between ape and man. Sociahsm is the future of all humanity . 
. . The old powers can delay this development, but they cannot destroy it . . . This 



change in the structure of society cannot be achieved in a reformatory way. You 
can only achieve it in the revolutionary' way . . . If this socialist structure we have 
in Russia were introduced in all nations of the world, it would be impossible to 
wage war, just as war is impossible between the Ukraine and Armenia."[2 1] 

The Soviets, according to their lights, are making an effort to woo the Germans 
into acceptance of communism and to minimize resentment. As already noted, 
they have handled denazification v^ith comparative enlightenment. Scientists, 
technologists, military experts, and others with special talents have been eagerly 
sought after and offered attractive inducements to render service to the new 
regime. Penitent Nazis are invited to transfer allegiance to the Communist Party 
and to start working through it for German salvation. Taking advantage of the 
deep resentment of the French and Morgenthau proposals to amputate the 
western Reich, Communists have taken the lead in an intensely pro-Fatherland 
movement. This gives the Germans the impression that the western democracies 
who would stand in the way of "the new and greater German Reich" are the real 
enemies, rather than either nazism or communism. [22] Russian occupation 
troops apparently no longer molest frauleins, "at least not in the careless, 
irresponsible way the Americans do," reports an American correspondent. [23] It 
is interesting to note in this connection that only one man remains in the zone for 
every 15 women in the 20 to 30 years of age bracket. [24] 

Hitler had freed the peasants of the scourge of usurious mortgage holders; Russia 
goes a step further in her bid for popular approval by breaking up the Junker and 
other large estates and making the land available in small plots of between 11 and 
17 acres to approved Germans on easy terms. [25] The operation does not increase 
total production but appears to spread ownership. The maneuver is obviously a 
preliminary to collectivization similar to the procedure followed in liquidation of 
the Ukrainian Kulaks. The new "owners" are promised houses and equipment. 
Since these are not available, the owners have no choice but to band together in 
the existing estate buildings, where collectivist headquarters must be located. 
Collectivization can thus proceed a little later with minimum disturbance, and the 
new government can with ease slip into position to exploit those who work the 
soil in place of the former owners. 

All farmers are given production quotas to fill at controlled prices. Part of any 
surplus, and there rarely is one since the quotas are set so high, maybe sold in 
markets where those with the money to buy, usually members of the new ruling 
bureaucracy, can buy food to supplement rations, which are nominally set at 
about the same level as those in the American zone. The requisite supplies are not 
always available in many places, however, and widespread starvation has 
occurred.[26] Persistent reports nevertheless tell of substantial food exports to 
Russia. [27] However people are allowed rationed brown coal for residential 
heating, [28] whereas, as previously mentioned, Berliners and those in the 
western zones have had no coal to heat their homes. 



The industries left in the zone are all in operation and are either managed by 
Russians or "workers councils" dominated by Communists. Although most of the 
product is taken as reparation and sent to the Soviet Union, a small amount is 
made available for sale to the German workers. Correspondents permitted to tour 
the zone in March, 1946, reported that a long list of manufactured products were 
on display, including carpenter tools, typewriters, sewing machines, even 
automobiles. [29] They reported that the Germans they saw displayed less of an 
attitude of futility and a more vigorous spirit than are encountered in other 
zones.[3o] 

Only one political party is allowed, the Social Unity Party, representing a forced 
merger of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties, with the former 
completely dominant. Since all positions carrying power, prestige, and higher 
than ordinary incomes are held by Communists and their pets, thousands of 
Germans have rushed into the Party simply to gain its perquisites. [31] The 
Germans are learning spoils politics from their Red overlords on a scale that 
would make a Tammany ward heeler blush. [32] Even if Russia should be forced 
to withdraw her occupation forces, with political control returned to the 
Germans, the deeply entrenched German Communists would no doubt continue 
to maintain themselves in power and in all probability provide the whole of 
Germany with political leadership. [33] 

The way for ultimate communization of the western areas is being assiduously 
prepared by Communists in the western zones of occupation, [34] many of whom 
have worked their way into important posts in both the occupation bureaucracies 
and the local governmental establishments which have been set up to be run by 
Germans under the watchful eye of the military forces. Such communist 
penetration has automatically been abetted by the Potsdam program, by de- 
industrialization, de-nazification, enslavement, repression, by the whole terrible 
catastrophe. The roaming bands of vagabonds maybe a curse to the western 
zonal authorities, but they afford the Communists excellent revolutionary 
material. Since the institution of private property and the propertied classes are 
now largely wiped out, the way has been opened for converting the whole Reich 
into a Sovietized "democracy." 

We have done much already to facilitate realization of Russia's plans, and the 
Kremlin expects us to do more. It wants us to accept the Russian claim to 10 
billion dollars in German reparations, not only to produce handsome booty but to 
place such a load on the crippled German economy that it could survive only 
under communization. [35] It is to Russia's advantage to delay the signing of a 
peace treaty with Germany as long as possible, for the delay will give her plans 
that much longer to mature. And if any German government is to be set up in the 
meantime, Russia wants it to be a provisional, centralized government, one that 
will give maximum opportunity to the thoroughly entrenched Communists to 
draw into their grasp controls over all of Germany. 



The West Aivakens 

The West has been slow to recognize that the Russian ally is really no ally at all, 
but a determined enemy, that behind the Kremlin's every move lurks a sinister, 
dangerous motive. Our own leaders were long caught under the influence of Mr. 
Roosevelt's "great design," the strategy of trying to cure the Soviet leaders of their 
suspicion, animosity, and hatred of the West by showering them with favors and 
kindness. While under the spell we considered the truculent sons of Russia 
prodigals just returning to the family of nations, and felt it our duty to cater to 
their whims and eccentricities, to overlook their insults and stabs. 

We signed the Potsdam Declaration, without suspecting that it was a Russian 
booby trap, that its vague, contradictory, undefined provisions and phrases could 
be applied by and yield advantage to only a Soviet Union which thrives on human 
misery. We shut our eyes to the vital difference between our way of life and 
Russian communism. Because Communists called their way "democracy," we 
assumed it was somehow akin to our "democracy" and we accepted in good faith 
Russia's wartime pretension that she was finished with revolution both at home 
and abroad, that her aggressions were nothing more than moves to strengthen 
her "essential security." 

We have had our clashes with the Russians both in and out of Germany, have 
endured slaps and humiliations such as Americans have never accepted before. 
We have permitted our telephone lines running through the Russian zone to our 
zone in Berlin to be tapped. We have even put up with a Russian refusal to supply 
our Berlin zone with fresh food. We have bowed to Russian refusal to permit us to 
double track our single rail line into Berlin. We have had serious conflicts over 
newspaper censorship, control of radio outlets and programs, schools and school 
curricula, and a multitude of things both important and trivial, taking it all with a 
friendly smile when we had to yield to Soviet demands. 

But finally we began to realize that such tactics were impressing the Russians 
only as weakness and to awaken to the menacing character of Soviet designs. 
Mildly at first, but with growing determination, we began to take a firmer stand, 
to demand that our own interests be given some attention. Our disillusionment 
was complete when Mr. Molotov at Paris finally showed his hand. We have been 
staggering to our senses ever since. We must hope that the awakening has come 
in time to prevent the Kremlin from absorbing the German Reich. 

In the struggle we must recognize that Russia will have certain advantages, apart 
from those gained by our attempt to apply the sadistic Potsdam decrees, 
including deep German resentment. The Russian bureaucracy with its long 
experience in managing economic institutions and processes has found it 
relatively simple to take over control of the German economy in its zone and is 
fully prepared to extend the control over the rest of the Reich when opportunity 
presents itself. On the other hand, our own Government and especially our 



military forces are notoriously incompetent in handling economic affairs. 
Conditions reached bottom early in the Russian zone, so that what change has 
come has been for the better; whereas, bad as things are in our zone, they must 
be expected to become progressively worse. Germans will not fail to note the 
contrast and to draw dangerous conclusions. As stated before, the former 
movement of Germans from the East to the West has already reversed. 
Thousands of disillusioned, discouraged Germans are crossing into the Russian 
zone where they will enthusiastically prepare to help drive the hateful 
democracies out of Germany. 

We have numerous advantages, however, which, if handled properly, should 
prove decisive. German antipathy toward Russia and Bolshevism is deepseated; 
in contrast, Germans have hitherto always admired us Americans and have 
imitated us in many ways, especially in economic techniques. Russia has also 
compromised herself in fundamental ways. She was behind the terrible 
expulsions of Germans from the lost territories and other places. She has been 
the instigator and chief beneficiary of the slave system, having taken from three 
to four times as many prisoners as all the western powers together. Germans of 
all classes deeply resent the cruel and violent liquidation of the former upper and 
middle classes, especially because it was carried out by foreigners and 
Communists whose patriotism is suspect. 

Our task is to formulate a new and just German peace program - one that will 
give effect to our basic ideals and convictions and lead Germany toward, not away 
from, us and our way of life. But before we can take this step intelligently we must 
first face certain basic facts, must disabuse our minds of certain gross 
misconceptions which have lowered us in German esteem and misled us into the 
present danger. 



Reference Notes: 

[i] Josef Stalin, Foundations of Leninism (New York: International Publishers), Chapter 6, Sec. 6. 

[2] Josef Stalin, Problems of Leninism (New York: International Publishers, 1934), Chapter V, 

"The Party and the Working Class Within the System of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

[3] Josef Stalin, Problems of Leninism, pp. 43-4. 

[4] Reported in Chicago Daily News and other newspapers, Sept. 24, 1946. 

[5] Problems of Leninism , p. 75. 

[6] Problems of Leninism , p. 69. 

[7] Problems of Leninism , p. 66. 

[8] Same as No. 7. 

[9] Foundations of Leninism, p. 44. 

[10] Foundations of Leninism, Chapter VIII, "The Party," (5) 'The Party as the Expression of 

Unity of Will, Which Is Incompatible with the Existence of Factions,' pp. 118 ff. 

[11] Foundations of Leninism, p. 120. 

[12] Foundations of Leninism, p. 102-3. 

[12a] Congressional Record , Feb. 11, 1946, p. A-683. 

[13] Josef Stalin, From Socialism to Communism in the Soviet Union (New York: International 

Publishers, 1939), p. 38. 

[14] Problems of Leninism, p. 25. 



[15] David Dallin, The Real Soviet Russia (Yale University Press, 1945), p. 46. 

[16] Chicago Herald-American, April 14, 1946. 

[17] Prof. Karl Brandt, "Behind the Iron Curtain," The Progressive, Sept. 16, 1946. p. 5. 

[18] Same at No. 17. 

[19] Henry Wales, Berlin, March 26, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[20] United Press, Berlin, Aug. 8, 1946, Chicago Daily News. 

[21] Hal Foust, Berlin, May 20, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Sersdce. 

[22] Edd Johnson, Berlin, Jan. 30, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Sersdce. 

[23] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, March 25, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[24] Henr>'. Wales, Berlin, April 9, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[25] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 7, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[26] Prof. Karl Brandt, "Behind the Iron Curtain," The Progressive, Sept. 16, 1946, p. 5. 

[27] John Thompson, Berlin, Oct. 3, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[28] Edd Johnson, Berlin, March 26, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[29] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, March 27, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[30] Same as No. 29. 

[31] Same as No. 24. 

[32] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 13, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[33] Same as No. 23. 

[34] Cf. Hal Foust, Berlin, May 4, 1946, Chicago Daily Tribune; Wallace R. Deuel, Chicago Daily 

News, Sept. 12 and 16, 1946. 

[35] Cf. Samuel Grafton, The Chicago Sun, July 22 and 23, 1946. 



Chapter X: 
FACTS WE MUST FACE 

Hoiv We Played into Russia's Hands 

General Eisenhower told a press conference in London that the Russians "like to 
laugh." Well they might, in view of the way we have played into their hands and 
fallen for their subterfuges. 

Things have come to such a pass that we have seriously been told we must not 
criticize the Russians or their government; yet those who said so have felt 
perfectly free to criticize everything American and have made no corresponding 
effort to stop Soviet blasts at us. 

In March, 1945, GI's in Germany were actually placed under oflicial orders not to 
make unflattering remarks about the Reds.[i] Typical of our un-American efforts 
to throttle critics was AMG censorship in April, 1946, of a letter by a Catholic 
Bishop calling attention to Russian abuses of Germans through forced labor and 
expulsions. We prohibited the reading of the letter in churches, because it might 
offend Russia.[2] Social Democrats and other German political parties have not 
been allowed to criticize the Communist party, lest Russia take offense. 

We must realize that there is something seriously wrong with nations, as with 
people, who cannot stand criticism, who try to place themselves beyond reproach, 
and that something is equally wrong with people who truckle to them. 

Russia deserves not only criticism but condemnation. Stalin in 1939 told the 
Communist Party of Russia it must beware of us, for we would send our "spies, 
murderers, and wreckers" into the Soviet Union. The facts are that the Soviet 
Union has sent its spies, murderers, and wreckers into this country, as in all 
others, where they have infiltrated into our government, occupying hundreds of 
key positions, sitting in our inner councils, and even helping mold our foreign 
policy. 

It must make the Russians chortle up their sleeves the way we coddle these 
insidious fifth columnists. In contrast, the Reds shoot on suspicion anyone they 
catch in Russia who they think might represent outside influences. 

In the Canadian spy trial it was established both by direct testimony and 
documentary proof that "the dissolution of the Communist International was 
probably the greatest farce of the Communists in recent years," and that "only the 
name was liquidated with the object of reassuring public opinion in the 
democratic countries. Actually, the Comintern exists and continues its work." 
Communist insiders were warned by their higher-ups with regard to Britain and 
the United States: "Yesterday they were allies, today they are neighbors, 
tomorrow they will be our enemies." It was also brought out that "in Russia there 
is a great deal of propaganda carried on by conversation of the propagandists and 



even in the press. It is all done to train people to think they must fight another 
war, that maybe it will be our final war."[3] 

In Germany we have permitted the Comintern to place its agents in AMG and the 
local German government apparatus we have erected. Newspapermen in our zone 
tend to lean toward communism, mostly because former anti-Nazi talent was first 
cleared for press work by German emigres with leftist leanings hired by AMG to 
do the screening.[4] 

In May, 1946, it was revealed that the State Department with the aid of the FBI 
had purged itself of hundreds of pro-Soviet employees. [5] Some time later Mr. 
Byrnes, head of the department, when asked why certain others had not been let 
out, despite their having been identified, replied that it would be inadvisable to 
do so while we are involved in a serious diplomatic struggle with the Soviet 
Union. [6] 

His excuse was a tacit admission that he recognized that the men are agents of 
the Soviet Government, and that the Kremlin might get upset if we turned the 
rotters out. 

There is no valid reason why we should treat Russia and her fifth column any 
differently from the way we treated Nazi Germany and its fifth column. The only 
important difference between the two in terms of their threat against our national 
tranquility and safety is that the Soviet fifth column is far stronger and more 
deeply entrenched than the Nazi one ever was. If it was right for us to crack down 
on the Nazis here the way we did, without regard to Hitler's feelings, it is right 
that we should crack down with equal firmness and effectiveness on the 
Communists in our midst, without regard to Stalin's feelings, for all of them 
would be potential traitors and saboteurs if we should get into serious trouble 
with Russia. 

One of the most costly consequences of Soviet penetration of our State 
Department has been our acceptance of wily Russian proposals at Yalta and 
Potsdam. These include: division of Germany into zones, each to be occupied by a 
different power; the Allied Control Council, with the clause calling for unanimity 
on all decisions, with the disastrous results already noted; requiring Germany to 
pay reparations in kind; the forced labor system; the forcible expulsions of 
Germans from lost German territories, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. 
The territorial settlements and arrangements accepted at Potsdam were all the 
ones pressed by Russia; French claims were left open. The idea of a long 
armistice for Germany, if not of actual Russian origin, would certainly play into 
Russia's hands. [7] 

Britain and the United States in the days between Teheran and Potsdam, thanks 
in large measure to Mr. Roosevelt's unfortunate "great design" and Red 
influences in the administration, were eager to borrow any Soviet idea and 
acclaim any Soviet plan for Germany. Although deeply involved in war, the brains 



of the Politburo found the time to frame a program to take full advantage of the 
westerners' solicitude. They have been cashing in on it ever since, and we have 
been suffering the consequences. 

We have even given Russia help both direct and indirect in extending her power 
over eastern Europe and half of Germany. Instead of following Churchill's advice 
of attacking Germany through the Balkans and thus warding off Russian 
conquest and occupation, we sided with Russia and decided to attack across the 
English Channel. As the Russians swept into the Balkans and on into Austria and 
Germany, they rode in American lend-lease trucks, jeeps and airplanes. Since 
then we have supported their brutal rule through such agencies as UNRRA. As 
fast as we have shipped relief supplies into these areas, Russia has drained out an 
equivalent amount for herself and claims the credit for what we pour in. [8] In 
Germany we even handed the Russians our money plates and permitted them to 
print billions of occupation marks which we were originally supposed to make 
good, and possibly still are. But all such aid, including the eleven billion dollars in 
lendlease gifts has been ignored by the Kremlin which has gone blithely on its 
way opposing our most vital interests. 



We Should Have Knoivn Better 

In addition to all this, as Dorothy Thompson has well expressed it: "Mr. 
Morgenthau's fantastic concepts laid the basic 'principles' for the Potsdam 
program, which played straight into Soviet hands. "[9] In other words, the 
Morgenthau Plan was made to order for the Kremlin. 

When we came to Russia at Yalta with a so-called peace plan which called for 
vengeance and destruction of a trade competitor, she saw and seized her 
opportunity to turn the whole program to her advantage at our expense. 

Although the Plan promises to bring the blessings of peace and prosperity to a 
troubled world, if we had only taken the trouble to analyze its proposals in the 
light of Mr. Morgenthau's own principles as expressed in other connections on 
other occasions, we should have recognized immediately that it could only bring 
catastrophe. 

In promoting acceptance of the Bretton Woods Fund and Bank Plan, Mr. 
Morgenthau as Secretary of the Treasury, proclaimed the thesis that "prosperity, 
like peace, is indivisible." And in promoting the loan to Britain later on he 
elaborated at length on this principle. These are his words: 

"If we have learned nothing else from the frightful experience of war, we should 
have learned at least that we live in an incorribly integrated world. It is a world 
which cannot exist half slave and half free, nor half at war and half at peace. 
Neither can it exist half prosperous and half impoverished. Prosperity, like peace 
is indivisible. It must be shared by all if any are to enjoy it." - "Our own living 
standards cannot rise and remain at high levels without progressive prosperity 



throughout the world." - "As I have observ^ed before, prosperity cannot be 
segmented; all must share in it or in time all will lose it."[l0] (emphasis added) 

The contradiction between these tenets and the deliberate impoverishment of any 
nation is irreconcilable and obvious. Mr. Morgenthau advances these ideas as 
universal principles, applicable to all countries without exception. If they could 
validly be used to support making sacrifices to put one country, Britain, on its 
feet to bolster world trade and prosperity, with equal force they compel the 
conclusion that a program calling for permanent impoverishment of any leading 
country, Germany not excepted, would plunge the whole world into an economic 
quagmire. 

Mr. Morgenthau is not alone, however, in thus compromising himself with his 
own principles. Mr. Bernard Baruch, well known adviser of Presidents, has also 
been at one and the same time a one-worlder and an implacable advocate of 
converting Germany into a poor house. As the war was drawing to its close in the 
European theater, Mr. Baruch, who loves to address his audiences as "Fellow 
citizens of the world," was in London where he granted an interview to a Victor 
Lasky, a Stars and Stripes staff writer. In explaining his presence in the British 
capital, Baruch said, according to Lasky: 

"And one reason I am over here is to hold a big stick over the big 
boys to make damn sure they're not going to foul up the peace. 
We've got to de-industrialize Germany and Japan - for at least a 
generation - to see that those subsidized slave labor countries do 
not again flood the world with their cheap products . . ."[ll] 

This was Mr. Baruch's way of saying that he was abroad to see to it that Germany 
was permanently eliminated as a competitor in world trade. 

Baruch failed to explain the nature of the "big stick" he was holding over the big 
boys, but the following June, before the Senate Military Affairs Committee, he 
made very clear what he wanted done with the Reich. He said it was not enough 
merely to demand an "economically weak" Germany, that the program of 
weakening Germany must be "sufficiently specific - industry by industry - so that 
all the occupying nations know they have agreed to the same thing." First of all, 
he said, reparations should be paid in German labor, instead of rebuilding the 
country's industry so it could pay reparations through exports from current 
production. Germany's "war making potential must be eliminated. Many of her 
plants must be shifted east and west to friendly countries; all heavy industries 
destroyed; the Junker estates broken up; her exports strictly controlled; German 
assets and business organizations all over the world rooted out." 

This program of impoverishment and that of Mr. Morgenthau are, of course, very 
similar. Mr. Baruch candidly admits that his aim is to destroy Germany as a trade 
competitor; Mr. Morgenthau's program tacitly contains the same objective. 
People were appalled when it was said that the elder Rockefeller burned down the 
refineries of competitors he could not otherwise destroy. How much more 



revolting are these proposals to destroy the economy of a whole nation for a 
similar purpose! Conservative leaders who use their influence in this manner 
furnish a basis for effective criticism of capitalistic morality, or lack of it, and 
weaken the basis for defense of the profit system. Since, according to the one 
world thesis, prosperity "must be shared by all if any are to enjoy it," and "all 
must share in it or in time all will lose it," the Morgenthau-Baruch Plan would 
impoverish not only Germany, but Europe, and the whole world, not excluding 
the United States, and therefore presumably Messrs. Baruch and Morgenthau as 
well. 

The Morgenthau-Baruch proposals have been the official policy of our 
Government, which at the same time is committed to one-world principles. As a 
result, our leading officials, in their efforts to uphold these mutually exclusive 
theories, have been forced, like Mr. Morgenthau, into absurd self-contradiction. 
For example, Mr. Truman, while advocating impoverishment of Germany along 
Morgenthau-Baruch lines, said at Soldiers Field in Chicago: 

"We shall work to achieve equal opportunity in world trade because closed 
economic blocs in Europe or any place in the world can only lead to 
impoverishment and isolation of the people who inhabit it. We shall press for the 
elimination of artificial barriers to international na\igation, in order that no 
nation, by accident of geographic location, shall be denied unrestricted access to 
seaports and international waterways." 

Later he said in the same speech: 

"Economic distress, anywhere in the world, is a fertile breeding ground for 
violent political upheaval. "[l2] 

By continuing our policy of creating economic distress in Germany, we would 
therefore create a fertile breeding ground for communism. Here Mr. Truman 
admits as much. 

In his speech in Stuttgart, Mr. Byrnes contradicted himself in similar fashion, for 
he tried to justify the original program of deindustrialization and denazification, 
which means holding Germany in poverty, and at the same time said: 

"We have learned, whether we like it or not, that we live in one world from which 
we cannot isolate ourselves. We have learned that peace and well-being are 
indivisible." 

Before we can win the respect of the world and get on the right road leading to 
real world prosperity and well-being, we must eradicate the whole Morgenthau 
and Potsdam contamination from our thinking and official policies. 



Germany, the Heart of Europe 



We must take seriously the recognized fact that Germany is the heart of Europe 
on which the economic life of that Continent depends, and that when we make 
that heart stop beating all Europe must die. We must realize, too, that any 
reduction of the German standard of living would only lower the standards of 
other European countries, that to bring them all to the same mean level would 
bring universal impoverishment that would cancel out the progress of centuries. 

Despite his one-world principles expressed elsewhere, Mr. Morgenthau in his 
book, GERMANY IS OUR PROBLEM, writes: 

"Actually there is no 'European Economy,' certainly not in the sense that there is 
a United States economy. Some thirty countries in Europe have their separate 
economies, and a great variety of them, too." (p. 31) 

He factiously argues that "a strong Europe is better than a strong Germany," as 
though the two were opposed, and insists that weakening Germany and reducing 
her foreign trade will add to European prosperity. He says: 

"Before World War I, Germany accounted for 12 per cent of the world's 
international commerce. By the 1920's her share had fallen below 10 per cent. In 
1936 and 1937 it was a bit more than 8 per cent. The world would not be the loser 
if Germany fell to 2 or 3 per cent and her share were taken over by other nations." 
(pp. 71-2) 

In short, where Germany is concerned, Mr. Morgenthau finds foreign trade quite 
unimportant either for the Reich or for the countries trading with her; however, 
when other countries are involved, foreign trade takes on unique importance. 

In a statement submitted to the Small Business Committee of the Senate, April 
20, 1945, Mr. Morgenthau said: 

"Our exports may seem to be only a small part of our total production. They are, 
nevertheless, vital. . . . They mean the difference between prosperity and 
depression for both agriculture and industry." 

On Feb. 26, 1945, he told the Detroit Economic Club, while urging building up 
our exports of automobiles to a million cars a year: 

"We can reach such a trade level only if both the producing and consuming 
powers of all countries are expanded, not merely restored to their old levels." 

Such Statements show that Mr. Morgenthau himself, if he will only think things 
through, must repudiate his proposals to impoverish the Reich and destroy its 
trade with the rest of the world, or give up one-world principles. 

Britain's experience testifies eloquently to the importance of Germany to 
European economy. At first she fell under the influence of those advocating 
German impoverishment, ostensibly to prevent another war but actually to 
remove the Reich as a trade competitor and possibly turn it into a market for the 



very products it had formerly exported. But when she saw that Germany was 
facing complete disaster, and pulling Europe down with her, she partly reversed 
her position, to prevent what "approximated closely to cutting off one's nose to 
spite one's face." For, after all, she had to realize that destruction of Germany to 
prevent German exports from competing with hers would also mean loss of a 
large German demand for British goods. As Prime Minister Attlee told the U. S. 
Congress, "We cannot have prosperity at home with hell abroad." 

The German prostration has been felt everywhere. Sweden has officially 
expressed concern over the fact that she has been unable to carry on any of her 
accustomed trade with the Reich, with damaging consequences to herself as well 
as to Germany. [13] Holland, too, has been hard hit, having to export food and 
fuel while the homeland does without. Dutch farmers used to exchange food 
products for German fertilizer, which they can obtain now only at high prices 
from high cost producers. Holland used to get fees for transmitting goods 
between Germany and other countries; now this trade and its profit are gone with 
the suppression of German commerce. Germany and Holland used to exchange 
the things each made best in its own country. This put German machinery, tools, 
and instruments in Dutch plants, on Dutch farms and railroads. Now this 
equipment cannot be replaced or even repaired due to stoppage of manufacture 
in the Reich. As one observer puts it: 

"The deindustrialization decrees have been encouraged by less efficient interests 
of the United Nations, especially England, which hope to gain by the death 
sentences for German competition. The Netherlands and other countries are 
missing what they used to get from Germany."[l4] 

In London, "Food ministers of 17 European countries," says an Associated Press 
dispatch, "turned to defeated Germany as a possible source of coal and fertilizer, 
both sorely needed to avoid famine."[i5] 

Showing deep concern. The London Economist says: 

"The truth is that the prosperity of Western Europe has depended to a great 
extent upon the existence of a great wealth producing industrial concentration in 
the Ruhr. That wealth-producing machinery' is now almost completely idle, and 
all of Germany's western neighbors are bearing the consequences. 
"To say that the ruin of Germany is the ruin of Europe would not raise in Russia 
more than a sigh of relief that both should be weakened together. The American 
attitude is more difficult to understand. "[16] 

The Chicago Sun said editorially: 

"It is good business - plain, hardboiled common sense - for any wholesaler to help 
his best customer back on his feet when that customer is in financial difficulty. If 
the customer is a whole nation, the need becomes immensely more 

pressing. "[17] 



Of course this was said in defense of a loan to Britain, but the same logic would 
apply as well to Germany, once one of our best customers. 

Mr. Byrnes said at Paris: 

"The economic revival of Germany is essential to the well-being of Europe." 

At Stuttgart he admitted, as had Molotov at Paris, that Germany is the industrial 
workshop of Europe. 

To repeat, we are having to face the fact that we cannot continue with our original 
policies toward Germany and hope to have anything but impoverishment of 
Germany, and, as a consequence, of Europe, and the world. 

The Matter of War Guilt 

Mr. Morgenthau, whose ideas on the subject correspond to the official opinion of 
the United Nations, rests his entire case for turning Germany into a poorhouse on 
the thesis that German lust for war was the sole cause of both World Wars. 
"Desire for war," he writes in bis book, "has been as firmly planned in the 
German as desire for freedom in the American." Sheer will to war, accompanied 
by a plot to conquer the world, he says, has been intensively cultivated in the 
German people for nearly two hundred years and would probably require another 
two hundred years to eradicate. Hence, he argues, the only way to stop Germany 
from again disturbing the peace of the world at her first opportunity is to prevent 
the opportunity, and this can be done best by permanently weakening her to a 
point where she cannot, even though she would, wage war. [18] 

The justice of his whole program, and therefore of Potsdam, must stand or fall on 
this premise. If there is any doubt as to its validity or completeness, there must be 
equal doubt as to the justice of his plan. 

Without attempting to exhaust the subject we offer the following evidence which 
does tend to raise doubt concerning the accuracy of the premise, and therefore 
equal doubt as to the justice of our treatment of the German people. 

Let us again consult Mr. Morgenthau on other occasions. On March 7, 1945, he 
told the House Committee on Banking and Currency: 

"Power politics . . . has become a term of reproach in the world. . . . The United 
Nations hope to abolish it from the earth. But power economics may be just as 
dangerous, for if it is not the root of all evil in international affairs it is at the very 
least a frequent cause of conflict. The legislation before this committee is our best 
hope of banishing that too. 

"We cannot say that we will join the other nations in an organization to maintain 
peace, but will not help remove one of the most dangerous causes of war - 
economic dislocation. "\^1<^^ 



Economic dislocation is hardly the same thing as the perversity of German nature 
or "will to war." 

Three months later, Mr. Morgenthau told the Senate Banking and Currency 
Committee: 

"Peace is more than a political problem. It is a complicated structure than can be 
built only upon the solid foundation of economic order and prosperity in all 
countries. Peace and prosperity are two sides of the same problem. We can 't 
neglect one without endangering the other. If peace is to endure, there must be 
jobs, there must be hope of economic betterment. 

"International monetary and financial problems have been a source of conflict 
for a generation. We must see that after this war they do not become the basis for 
newconflicts."[20] 

Lack of prosperity and hope of economic betterment and international monetary 
and financial problems were therefore at least partly to blame for the recent war, 
according to Mr. Morgenthau himself, not merely German lust for war, argued in 
his book. 

He told the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce: 

"After the last war, informal attempts were made to stabilize currencies but they 
failed. . . . Competitive currency depreciation led to other forms of economic 
warfare. . . . New currency tricks restricted and burdened trade. They must 
certainly be counted as a contributory cause of the great depression. And they 
were the first phase of the tragic war in which we are now engaged. "[2l] 

Mr. Vinson, successor to Mr. Morgenthau as Secretary of the Treasury, gave his 
version of the causes of war in these words: 

"We have the political, social, and economic problems among nations that twice 
in our generation rocked us into war. The resolution of these problems is 
necessary for prolonged prosperity and for lasting peace."[22] 

Solving such problems to prevent war is a far cry from our original policy of 
trying to maintain peace by turning Germany into a goat pasture. 

Herbert E. Gasten, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in a published speech 
said: 

"It was almost entirely because of the sick condition of foreign trade that we were 
barely getting out of the last depression when war came upon us. "[2 3] 

And on another occasion he said: 

"It seemed apparent even before the present war began with Germany's assault 
on Poland that we could not have political peace without economic peace and 



thriving world trade were not possible except under conditions of monetary 
peace."[24] 

That most wars, including the last one, have been caused by economic disruption 
and consequent "foul growths," to borrow a phrase from the late Lord Keynes, is 
a truism which no informed person will deny. Such dislocations and their results 
are not the same as human beings; human beings are the victims. Therefore, it is 
wrong to blame people for the forces which compel their behavior. When people 
fall into a trap where their very existence is threatened, they will fight their way 
out if there is any possibility to do so. They will fight, even though it might appear 
suicidal to do so. For most people prefer to die fighting than to die supinely. Such 
behavior maybe wrong, but it is the way people have behaved for many 
thousands of years, and the chances are they will continue to do so. 

The British themselves have often found conditions during peace more 
unbearable than war. Whenever the balance of power is upset in Europe so that 
the continent starts to fall under the domination of some one of its powers, 
Britain considers the situation a threat to her very existence and goes to war to 
preserve herself One of the best and most authoritative analyses of the matter 
appeared in the September, 1943, issue of the semi-official British publication, 
"The Nineteenth Century and After," by the editor, Mr. F. A. Voight. The 
following are pertinent excerpts: 

"It is fashionable to dismiss the balance of power as an obsolete doctrine. It is not 
a doctrine. It is, for Great Britain and the Empire the immutable condition of 
survival. Any power that becomes undisputed master of the European mainland 
can become master of the British Isles. . . . 

"England has no one permanent foe in Europe, and none of her \ital interests 
conflict with the vital interests of any European power. Her only foe is that 
power, or that coalition of powers, which may endeavor to dominate Europe. 
Against that foe she must always be ready, always be strong, and always have 
allies. As her foe varies, so her allies must vary. The foe of yesterday may be the 
ally of tomorrow and the ally of yesterday may be the foe of tomorrow. 
"The power of the British Empire, plus the power of continental allies, will, if the 
Empire is strong, always balance the power of whatever power seeks domination. 
And as long as the balance is maintained, there will be peace, for no one power 
can prevail over the rest of Europe plus the British Empire, as long as the Empire 
is strong. 

"This simple mechanism is the balance of power. It exists by \1rtue of the 
immutable physical realities. Neither the League of Nations, nor any system of 
collective security, nor disarmament can change these realities. As soon as the 
balance of power is challenged, every collective system will collapse and England 
will, if she is not to perish, make the counter-challenge. She did so in 1939. The 
mechanism of the balance was released and the League of Nations was at once 
deprived of whatever reality it had ever possessed on the 1st of September in that 
year, on the day when Germany attacked Poland and, so releasing the 
mechanism, began the second world war. England fought to preserve the balance 
- for that reason and no other. 

"The commonly accepted view that Germany made war to dominate the world is, 
in our opinion, mistaken. 

"She wanted to be a world power, but world power and world domination are not 
the same thing (England is a world power, but she does not dominate the world). 



Hitler would have been glad to share the world with the English. . . . Had England 
remained neutral he would have been successful. But she would then have been 
at his mercy, or the mercy of his successor - in any case at the mercy of the 
German Nation. . . . Nothing could have saved England from destruction - except 
the good will of the Germans.... 

"It was to avert this fate that England went to war in 1939. It is to avert a similar 
fate in future years that the balance must always be maintained. The political 
complexion of those that maintain the balance is quite irrelevant. . . . The nature 
of the peace must be determined by the enduring realities of the European 
situation, not by transient phenomena like fascism, national socialism, socialism, 
or communism. This exorbitant strength of Germany must be reduced and it 
must be kept reduced. Better a despotically governed Germany that is not too 
strong than a liberal Germany that is too strong. . . . But it is . . . important that 
the weakening of Germany be relative rather than absolute. "[25] 

This explains in terms very different from Mr. Morgenthau's the underlying cause 
of the two world wars. It explains Britain' s interest in the Potsdam agreements, 
including de-industrialization and de-nazification, and the exigencies behind 
Britain's present opposition to Russia, which again threatens to upset the 
European balance, just as Germany did. It disputes the thesis that the German 
people and their perversities were solely responsible for the war and should be 
punished accordingly. 

It also clarifies a good many otherwise unexplainable episodes connected with the 
war and its outbreak. It shows why Britain went to war ostensibly to oppose 
aggression, but applied the policy only to Germany, and not to Russia when she 
attacked Poland in full partnership with Germany. It explains the reason for the 
secret protocol attached to her declaration guaranteeing British and French aid to 
Poland, which qualified and limited the guarantee to German aggression and 
none other. The portion of this treaty that was made public at the time, gave the 
impression that the guarantee stood on moral ground, against any and all 
aggression. The published part stated: 

"Should one of the contracting powers become engaged in hostilities with a 
European power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that 
contracting party, the other contracting party will at once give the contracting 
power engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power." 

Although the language is somewhat involved, the meaning is clear, that defense 
against aggression was the prime consideration and what England would fight 
for. The German attack against Poland was considered a high international 
wrong. But when Russia also attacked and Britain failed to oppose this aggression 
which was also a brutal stab in the back, but continued the war against Germany 
alone, it became clear to many observers that something more was present in the 
situation than readily met the eye. There was a secret rider attached to the treaty 
which has since been made public and which stipulates that "The expression, a 
European power, employed in the agreement is to be understood as 
Germany."[26] 



In other words, Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against 
Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European 
balance. To correct the fundamental trouble, from Britain's point of view, 
Germany, after her defeat, must be weakened as a protective measure. No 
morality enters into the matter, only considerations of power politics and British 
survival. 

Lord Lothian, ihen British ambassador to the United States, said in March, 1938, 
at the time of the Austrian crisis: 

"If another war comes and the history of it is ever WTitten, the dispassionate 
historian a hundred years hence, will say not that Germany alone was responsible 
for it, even if she strikes first, but that those who mismanaged the world between 
1918 and 1917 had a large share of responsibility in it. "[27] 

In his column, April 23, 1944, Karl Von Wiegand wrote: 

"On April, 1939, four months before Hitler invaded Poland, Ambassador William 
C. Bullitt, whom I had known for 20 years, called me to the American embassy in 
Paris. Both of us standing before the fireplace in his office, the windows of which 
faced the beautiful Place de la Concorde, the American Ambassador told me that 
war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me 
infer it. When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of 
Soviet Russia and Bolshe\dsm, the ambassador replied: 'What of it. There will not 
be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshe\dzing."'[28] 

A month earlier, according to the Associated Press: 

"Joseph Stalin, in one of his most outspoken statements, told the world that 
So\iet Russia would not be dragged into conflict with Germany as a 'cat's paw' to 
pull British and French chestnuts out of the fire. . . . Underlying the policy of 
nonintervention (against fascism) he said was a desire to embroil Italy, Japan, 
and Germany as deeply as possible in war against the Soviet Union and then, 
when they all had become weakened by conflict, 'come on the stage with fresh 
forces and dictate peace. "[2 9] 

And a month after the conflict started Pravda said: 

"Peace and friendship between the U.S.S.R. and Germany are also in the interests 
of all nations of Europe. Conditions of anxiety, enmity and mutual distrust in 
Eastern Europe are advantageous only for warmongers who are used to make 
others pull chestnuts out of the fire for them. Such conditions were maintained in 
the course of many years by a policy of incitement of one country against the 
other."[30] 

Professor Harry Elmer Barnes in reply to the charge of bellicosity of the German 
people says: 

"England has been way out in front in point of relative bellicosity among the 
nations, while Germany and the Netherlands stand at the verj' bottom of the list, 
next to Denmark." 



This conclusion is forced by such findings as those in Professor Quincy Wright's 
"A Study of War" wherein it is shown that in the period from 1480 to 1940 there 
were 278 wars involving European countries, whose percentage participation was 
as follows: 

"England, 28; France, 26; Spain, 23; Russia, 22; Austria, 19; Turkey, 15; Poland, 
11; Sweden, 9; Italy, 9; Netherlands, 8; Germany (including Prussia), 8; and 
Denmark, 7," (Vol. I, p. 221) 

Likewise Pitirim Sorokin, in Vol. Ill, Part II of his SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 
DYNAMICS, shows that from the twelfth century to 1925 the percentage of years 
in which leading European powers have been at war is as follows (p. 352): 

Country Percent of Years at War 

Spain 67 

Poland 58 

England 56 

France 50 

Russia 46 

Holland 44 

Italy 36 

Germany 28 

Sorokin concludes, therefore, "that Germany has had the smallest and Spain the 
largest per cent of years at war." Of leading modern European states England, 
France, and Russia thus show nearly twice the bellicosity displayed by the "war- 
loving" Germans. 

Prof. Barnes goes on: 

"President Truman has well said that constructive public acts must be based on 
truth. It is too bad somebody could not have whispered a little truth into his ear 
before he left for Potsdam. There is little prospect that a structure erected wholly 
on lies in 1945 will endure any better than the one that was wholly based on lies 
in 1919. 

"And the probability is that the disillusionment after Potsdam will set in much 
more rapidly than it did after Versailles. In the period after 1919, we had to wait 
some years to obtain formerly secret documents to upset the lies of the period of 
war and peacemaking. This time, the upsetting facts are already available and so 
clear that any honest and informed man can read them while running. The only 
thing that we have to wait for is courage enough to state what is today well known 
and above serious doubt - in short, to know that an honest historian will not be 
listed immediately as a defendant in a mass sedition trial. [31] 

Incitement to war is a terrible thing. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of 
Production, told the Chamber of Commerce of America in London, June 20, 
1944, as reported by the United Press: 

"Japan was provoked into attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor. It is a 
travesty on history ever to say that America was forced into the war."[32] 



It is now established that to avoid war with the United States, Germany ordered 
its submarines not to retaliate in any way when attacked by U.S. forces under 
orders from Washington. In clear violation of international law our vessels in the 
Atlantic were ordered two months before Pearl Harbor to shell all Axis craft 
encountered. At the time, Admiral Stark had sent a message to Admiral Kimmel 
that "we are at war" in the Atlantic. 

Two months after Pearl Harbor, Prime Minister Churchill told the House of 
Commons: 

"when I survey and compute the powers of the United States and its vast 
resources and feel that they are now in it with us, with British Commonweahh of 
Nations all together, however long it lasts, till death or \ictory, I cannot believe 
that there is any other fact in the whole world which can compare with that. That 
is what I had dreamed of, aimed at, and worked for, and now it has come to 
pass."[33] 

Our lend-lease program had been squeezed through Congress by the narrowest of 
margins as a "peace measure." Senator Glass had given away its real purpose, 
however, when he said he favored loaning Great Britain all the war equipment we 
could spare "to wipe Germany off the face of the map. [34] He had the courage to 
say what was on the mind of many a figure in Washington and elswhere. 

Hitler has been condemned as a violator of international pacts and agreements; 
yet when we sent destroyers to Britain long before Pearl Harbor and later on 
permitted many of our vessels to be commandeered by British officers we 
violated Section 3 of Article V of the Act of June 15, 1917, which provides that 
during a war in which the United States is a neutral nation, it shall be unlawful to 
send out of the jurisdiction of the United States any vessel built, armed, or 
equipped as a vessel of war with any intent or with reasonable cause to believe 
that it shall be used by any belligerent nation. We also violated the Hague 
Convention which forbids a neutral nation to supply any war materials whatever 
to any belligerent country. 

There is no need to pursue the argument further. We have shown that good 
grounds exist for doubting in some degree, at least, the charge that the German 
people, because of their perverse natures, and their will and lust for war, were the 
sole culprits in the late conflict. There is equal room, therefore, for doubting the 
Justice of the Potsdam program to cripple Germany and condemn its people to 
perpetual poverty, and equally sound moral grounds for the repudiation of that 
program. 



On "Collective Guilt" and Propaganda 

The victors in every war think they are right and the defeated wrong. The late war 
has offered no exception. By continuing to condemn the defeated in this war as a 
race of criminals and punishing them accordingly, as we at first set out to do, we 



would be setting a most dangerous precedent, one which our children might have 
good reason to regret. For if we should ever lose a war we could only expect 
similar treatment. 

It is manifestly unjust to blame and punish the people of any country for the acts 
of their leaders, especially where the people have been brought under the heel of 
a dictatorship which under heavy penalty compels conformity to the leaders 
edicts and orders. 

The truth is that the people of no nation in modern history, including ourselves, 
have ever enjoyed an important voice in the making of the great decisions either 
of going to war or of framing the peace arrangements. This is one of the greatest 
facts we must face. America cannot possibly add amelioration to the sordid game 
of power politics which has plunged the nations of the world into one terrible war 
after another, until the people do assert themselves and insist upon the injection 
of justice into the peace arrangements. 

But before this can be accomplished they must break the bonds of false 
propaganda. This propaganda flows from two major levels, a higher and a lower. 
Britain's pose as upholder of righteousness while actually engaged in 
manipulating the balance of power system exemplifies the upper level. This type 
of propaganda is poignantly described by the late John Maynard Keynes in THE 
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE: 

"The politics of power are inevitable and there is nothing very new to learn about 
this war or the end it was fought for; England had destroyed, as in each preceding 
century, a trade rival; a mighty chapter had been closed in the secular struggle 
between the glories of Germany and of France. Prudence required some measure 
of lip serS'ice to the 'ideals' of foolish Americans and hypocritical Englishmen, but 
it would be stupid to believe that there is much room in the world, as it really is, 
for such affairs as the League of Nations or any sense in the principle of self- 
determination, except as an ingenious formula for rearranging the balance of 
power in one's own interests." 

This was written about World War I, but it applies as well to the second. Another 
Englishman, the great Disraeli, said: 

"All great events have been distorted, most of the important causes concealed, 
some of the principal characters never appear, and all who figure are so 
misunderstood and misrepresented that the result is a complete mystification. If 
the history of England is ever written by one who has the knowledge and the 
courage, the world would be astonished. "[35] 

British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin told the truth about the propaganda of the 
lower level when he said at the London Conference of Foreign Ministers, 
February 10, 1946: 

"A newspaper has three things to do. One is to amuse, another is to entertain, and 
the rest is to mislead. "[36] 



That such propaganda has played an enormous part in fomenting most wars 
cannot be doubted. It deceives and bewilders the public, inflaming it and 
strengthening its innate prejudices which civilizing processes ordinanarily hold to 
tolerable proportions. People can accurately judge only those things which come 
within the purview of their direct experience or which they are allowed to view 
from all angles by educational processes. When the mediums upon which the 
people rely to bring them their foreign news, color and emasculate the facts, or 
even manufacture them out of whole cloth, as they sometimes do, there is no 
possibility for the public to get the truth. Its collective judgment, the accuracy of 
which is the base upon which democratic processes rest, cannot, in consequence, 
be reliable; on the contrary, if its judgment is misled and its passions inflamed 
properly for the purpose, it will inevitably support mad adventures, unjust 
interventions, and other tragic missteps in international affairs. 

Thus, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a month before war broke out, sadly 
observed: 

"Unhappily, bad feeling between nations is fomented daily by poisonous 
propaganda in the press and by other means. I cannot help feeling that if only we 
halt this war of words and some action is taken which would tend to restore 
confidence of the people in the peaceful intentions of all the statesmen of Europe 
- if only that could be done, then I still feel that I know of no question that could 
not and should not be solved by peaceful discussions. The gain would be 
enormous. On the other hand, if war should come, whichever side may claim 
ultimate victory, nothing is more certain that victor and vanquished alike would 
glean a gruesome harvest of human misery and suffering. "[37] 

Americans, as well as the British, were flooded with misleading, inflamatory 
propaganda on the eve of the war. Only a few calm, informed observers were able, 
apparently, to see through it. In a letter to Hugh W. Long & Co., an executive of 
Roosevelt & Son of Pine Street, wrote six months before we were plunged into 
war: 

"I cannot refrain from expressing my contempt for those who are politically 
tojing with the fear motif at this time and painting a picture of the United States 
overrun by Adolph Hitler. There never was a country so strongly situated 
strategically for defense as this one, and when, in addition, that country has more 
oil than any other country in the world and more practical inventive 
achievements to its credit (including the original invention of and most of the 
significant improvements upon the airplane), and has an established and 
recognized aptitude for mass production, it is clear to me that it has a special 
genius for mechanized warfare and that all talk about what Adolph Hitler's armed 
forces may do to us is just bunk. 

"No. If totalitarianism is coming to the United States it will come because the 
American people can be charmed by insincere, superficial, adroit politicians and 
fail to demand the leadership of men of character, of courage, of honesty."[38] 

Perhaps the most poisonous of all the propaganda themes circulated in this 
country in full page newspaper ads and elsewhere was the purported statement of 
Adolph Hitler that he was going to come over here some day and finish off 



"decadent Yankeedom." The passage was dressed up to look like a direct 
quotation and was placed over the name of Adolph Hitler. Every effort was made 
to give the impression that it came from Mein Kampf; whereas, it was something 
Herman Rauschnigg had said Hitler had said - the unsupported testimony of one 
man, a refugee. 

Such a proposition is quite at variance with what Hitler actually wrote in Mein 
Kampf where he decries Germany's vulnerability on account of her exposed 
borders and the small extent of her national territory and extolls the United 
States on account of "its vast space, which is equivalent to the site of a Continent" 
and its "incomparable inner strength.". . . "The gigantic North American State," 
he says, "with the enormous resources of its soil, is much more invulnerable than 
the encircled German Reich." Again he says: 

"Military decisions are more quickly, more easily, more completely and more 
effectively gained against States which have extensive territories. Moreover, the 
magnitude of a national territory is of itself a certain assurance that an outside 
power will not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the 
struggle for power would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be 
hoped for. The risk being so great, there would have to be extraordinary reasons 
for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is that the territorial magnitude of a 
State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independence can be 
maintained with relative ease . . ."[39] 

Yet, how firmly propaganda had fixed the public impression that Mein Kampf 
offered a program for world conquest is brought out in the following excerpt 
taken from the transcript of the question period following an address given by 
Ambassador John Cudahy before the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations a 
month and a half before Pearl Harbor. 

"Chairman Bentley: I have a question here in writing: 'How do you reconcile 
Hitler's announced plan of world conquest with his statements made to you?' 
"Mr. Cudahy: I know of no plan of world conquest. (Cries of 'How about Mein 
Kampf?' from audience). 

"I read Mein Kampf very thoroughly and I cannot find any plan of world 
conquest. (Cries of Oh-h-h-h from audience). It used to put me to sleep; but after 
I had been in Germany I read the thing very thoroughly. Hitler has made a 
number of statements that would indicate that he has dreamed of world empire, 
but I guess Hitler can be guilty of a bit of campaign oratory. 
"I know that this war was caused by the last war." 

There never was any actual evidence that world conquest was contemplated. 
General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in his biennial report released in October, 
1945) stated that valuation by the War Department General Staff of 
interrogations of ranking members of the German high command had "failed to 
disclose any over-all German strategic plan to conquer the world."[40] 



Conclusion 



The Allied program to reeducate the Germans is a case of one deluded group 
trying to disillusion another. Our conviction that the Germans have been filled 
with poisonous propaganda is quite correct and our impulse to extirpate the 
effects of that propaganda is a good one. However, we cannot accomplish our 
purpose when so many of our own ideas are false, and especially when the 
Germans know from direct experience that they are false. To be successful, a 
teacher must enjoy the respect of those he attempts to teach. He must win that 
respect through the demonstrated superiority of his knowledge and 
understanding. Part of what we are trying to teach the Germans is true and could 
have a most salutary effect on the German outlook, if only we could get the 
Germans to listen with respect and sympathy. But too much of what we try to 
make them believe the Germans know to be untrue, and this knowledge on their 
part causes them to lose their respect for us and to turn a deaf ear to everything 
we say. 

Our reeducation program should begin at home. If we could only overcome the 
effects of our own illusions born of propaganda and ignorance arising from lack 
of intimate knowledge of European affairs, if we could only possess ourselves of 
the facts and then face them courageously, we not only could reeducate the 
Germans but could eliminate many erroneous and tragically dangerous features 
of our German program. Unless we do revise our own ideas and the program to 
which those ideas have given birth, we are in danger of losing Germany, Europe, 
and everything for which we fought this costly war. It is hoped that this book will 
help point the way to truth and therefore to our future success. 

Our experience in Europe has already taught us some bitter lessons and has 
forced us to ameliorate in some degree the harsh and brutal program which we 
set about to force upon our defeated enemy. But we have much more to learn and 
must make many more changes in our policy before we can hope for the success 
of our German adventure. With these facts in mind we offer the following 
suggestions. 



A Brief Plan for Germany 

Rush emergency food supplies to Germany. Raise the base diet to 2,200 calories 
per person per day immediately, and to 2,500 calories during the winter. Permit 
the Central Red Cross to function. Remove all limitations to private relief. 
Organize great drives under the sponsorship of Government, if possible, to 
provide clothing, fuel, medicines, and other necessities now lacking. 

Free all German war prisoners, return them to Germany, and provide them with 
the tools needed so they can work in Germany to feed and otherwise provide for 
the German people, and thereby remove a heavy burden from our shoulders. Give 
all prisoners full union wages for work exacted from them since V-E-Day, to 
enable them to reestablish themselves and provide for their surviving 
dependents. 



Return all German lands and restore the Reich's 1937 borders. Hold plebiscites in 
all other territories heavily populated by Germans in 1937, Danzig and Austria 
included, to determine, in harmony with the Atlantic Charter, under what flag 
these peoples wish to live. 

To relieve the present unbearable population pressure, encourage all countries 
with low population densities, such as the United States, Canada, Latin America, 
Australia, and Africa to lower the bars and permit the excess German population 
to emigrate. 

Extend all possible aid to rebuild German cities, restore essential public services, 
and create decent housing facilities. 

Remove all limitations to industrial production and encourage highest possible 
output (except munitions), in harmony with the thesis that "prosperity, like 
peace, is indivisible." 

Encourage German foreign trade in order to enable the Germans to maintain 
themselves as soon as possible. Place a value on the mark in terms of other 
currencies to make private German foreign trade possible. Permit production and 
operation of commercial airships and ocean-going vessels. 

Rehabilitate national finances and forestall inflation by stabilizing the currency. 
Contract existing currency by calling in outstanding marks and exchanging them 
for new marks on some such basis as five old for one new, and make all debts and 
contracts payable in the new marks at the same ratio in place of the old. Let 
experts decide the exact ratio needed for this operation which will aim to bring 
the price level down to that of 1937. Thereafter changes in the total supply of 
means of payment should be made to correspond to changes in national capacity 
to produce. 

Lower taxes to revive incentives and the profit motive. 

Remove all limitations on scientific research and invention, with prohibitions 
continued only in the fields of atomic fission, poison gas, and weapons of war. 

Draw up a peace treaty with Germany and officially end the war. 

Allow the Germans to set up a unified, central Government of their own choosing, 
in harmony with the Atlantic Charter, with only such external controls as those 
mentioned below. Encourage the Germans to frame a Constitution for 
themselves, with all parties advocating dictatorship or revolution barred from the 
Constitutional Convention. 

Thereupon, withdraw all occupation troops, remove the military governments, 
and abolish all zones. Continue disarmament permanently, however, and prohibit 
production of munitions and all weapons of war. To enforce United Nations 



controls install a system of observation and surprise inspection by roving patrols, 
permitted to inspect any and all records and activities, and backed by the military 
might of the United States and other United Nations. Violators to be tried before 
German courts by Allied prosecutors, with verdicts subject to appeal and retrial, 
if necessary, before Allied tribunals. 

Insist on abolition of all discrimination in favor of displaced persons and others, 
and make all persons in Germany equal before the law. 

Withdraw the reeducation program as gracefully and soon as possible. Replace 
the general anti-Nazi decrees with specific laws forbidding propagation and 
advocacy of certain clearly defined and specified ideas or activities, making these 
prohibitions apply to all alike, including Communists, so that if a certain 
principle previously advocated by the Nazis and outlawed as socially dangerous, 
happens also to be advocated by the Communists, the suppression will apply to 
Communists and all others alike, and not just to former Nazis as at present. 
Abolish all other edicts establishing political discrimination and give former 
Nazis a chance to reestablish themselves as productive, respectable, law abiding 
citizens with full rights. Abolish all censorship and facilitate intercourse between 
the Germans and the outside world. Permit Germans to travel freely to other 
countries and citizens of other countries to visit Germany as they wish. 

Only by such an example of wisdom and humanity, can we teach the Germans 
effectively the advantages of our way of life. By advancing such a program and 
pressing for its acceptance by our allies, we could instantly win the support and 
sympathy of virtually all Germans. Russia's designs on Germany would be 
frustrated, war between East and West would be unnecessary, the world would be 
spared another tragic holocaust. 



Reference Notes: 

[i] Associated Press, Wuerzburg, Germany, March ii, 1946. 

[2] Associated Press, Wiesbaden, Germany, April 26, 1946. 

[3] Associated Press, Ottawa, Ontario, July 15, 1946. 

[4] Lee Hills, Berlin, July 10, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[5] Willard Edwards, Washington, May 2, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Ser\dce. 

[6] Chester Manly, Washington, Aug. 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Da\dd J. Dallin, "Germany Between War and Peace." New Leader (World Events Section), Vol. 

XXVIII, No. 51, Dec. 22, 1945. 

[8] Larr>' Rue, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Dec. 15, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[9] Dorothy Thompson, "Moscow's Plan for Germany," Chicago Daily News, July 18, 1946. 

[10] From Henr>' Morgenthau, Jr., "Morgenthau on Economic Problems," The Chicago Sun, Sept. 

12, 13, and 14, 1945. 

[11] Associated Press, London, April 5, 1945. 

[12] April 7, 1946. 

[13] Financial Times, London, May 24, 1946, on report of Swedish Minister of Foreign Trade, M. 

Gunnar Myrdal. 

[14] Cf. Chicago Daily Tribune, April 16, 1946, p. 14. 

[15] Associated Press, London, April 6, 1946. 



[i6] William H. Stoneman, London, Sept. 8, 1945, Chicago Daily News Foreign Sendee. 

[17] The Chicago Sun, (editorial), Sept. 14, 1945, p. 16. 

[18] Henry Morgenthau, Germany Is Our Problem (New York: Harper and Bros., 1945), Chapter I 

(esp. p. 2) and Chapter 8, "Germany Has the Will to Try It Again." 

[19] Statement on "The Bretton Woods Agreement," as released by Treasury Dept., pp. 3 and 5. 

[20] June 12, 1945, p. 4, of U.S. Treasury press release. 

[21] Feb. 14, 1945, p. 2, of U.S. Treasury press release. 

[22] Address before Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Dec. 1, 1945, Press Service No. V- 

148, p. 5. 

[23] Before the Lower East Side Citizens Committee, at the Seward Park High School, New York 

City, April 19, 1945, Press Service No. 45-89, p. 2. 

[24] Before New York Chapter, American Society of Chartered Life Underwriters, Waldorf-Astoria 

Hotel, New York City, Friday, April 20, 1945, Press Service No. 45-91, p. 4. 

[25] From Congressional Record, Nov. 16, 1943, pp. 9672 ff. 

[26] Col. C.H. Lanza, Chicago Daily Tribune, Sept. 6, 1945. 

[27] Chicago Leader, Jan. 10, 1941. 

[28] Chicago Herald-American, April 23, 1944, p. 18. 

[29]Associated Press, Moscow, March 11, 1939. 

[30] Associated Press, Moscow, Sept. 30, 1939. 

[31] Harr>' Elmer Barnes, "Britain's Top War Criminal," The Progressive, Sept. 17, 1945, p. 8. 

[32] Congressional Record, June 21, 1944, p. 6429. 

[33] Congressional Record, Dec. 8, 1942. 

[34] United Press, Washington, Jan. 3, 1941. 

[35] Congressional Record, Dec. 11, 1945, p. A-5815. 

[36] Associated Press, London, Feb. 10, 1946 

[37] David Darrah, London, July 31, 1939, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[38] Roosevelt and Son, 30 Pine St., N.Y., to Hugh W. Long and Co., 155 Exchange Place, Jersey 

City, N.J., May 8, 1941. 

[39] Mein Kampf (London: Hurst and Blackett, Ltd), p. 125. Cf. also pp. 127, 463, and 520. 

[40] Walter Trohan, Washington, Oct. 9, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service.